Kenny Gryp wrote:
Are there some plans on selecting multiple loginterfaces to produce stats?
I'm running -CURRENT now and i can only select one loginterface.
If not, are there some reaons why you can only define one loginterface?
I had a patch long time ago that achieve that.
I could try to resur
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:50:11PM +0100, Kenny Gryp wrote:
> Are there some plans on selecting multiple loginterfaces to produce stats?
> I'm running -CURRENT now and i can only select one loginterface.
>
> If not, are there some reaons why you can only define one loginterface?
I don't think tha
nges through the statistics interface as it
made them, I could keep up with all these dynamic rule changes PF is doing!
-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: set loginterface
On Fri, Mar 07,
ge-
From: Cedric Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 1:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: set loginterface
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>you only want one because - In order to keep with the *nix ethic of one
tool
>one job - a singular
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you only want one because - In order to keep with the *nix ethic of one tool
one job - a singular loginterface gives you one point of contact for your
tool of choice for splitting out your various types of logs - i.e.. pipe it
through grep & tee orsee?
I'm looking at t
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 09:24:39PM +0100, Cedric Berger wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >you only want one because - In order to keep with the *nix ethic of one
> >tool
> >one job - a singular loginterface gives you one point of contact for your
> >tool of choice for splitting out your vari
Henning Brauer wrote:
Obviously, nobody of you has thought through the consequences of collecting
the stats on each interface.
How do you know such a thing?
As I said, I've a patch that did that in the past, for 3.0
or 3.1. So obviously I know something about the
consequences on the code.
However,
you just don't get it. It is entirely useless.
EVERYBODY understands that, except for you.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 05:49:41PM +0100, Cedric Berger wrote:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> >Obviously, nobody of you has thought through the consequences of collecting
> >the stats on each interface.
> >
>
east a break in
the clouds (could happen in the south)
ps - I will definitely add this FAQ to the Wiki (penance!) ;>
thx - Ed
-Original Message-
From: Henning Brauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: set loginterface
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:07:34PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> but I am definitely taking notes!...about how many interfaces are there in a
> (GENERIC) kernel? I hadn't even though about them.(ruff estimate's ok, a
> specific answer would just be a wasted on me) ~=)
too many. write a short l
Since the tree is already locked for 3.3, this is a post-3.3 issue, so
there's no reason to get agitated over it yet :)
These counters are increased with every packet, and per-packet cost has
the most impact on performance (as compared to per-connection), so this
has to be efficient.
Associating
11 matches
Mail list logo
