For single device mrtg I feel is easier than cacti.  I use cacti at work.
For a bunch of devices it is definitely better.  My html output is just
different, I have a template I use, the graphs are all I really care about.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hennessy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [pfSense-discussion] nokie + ip330

 
> I am pretty sure I am using the right values because I ran 
> the cfgmaker utility for mrtg and it came back with 3 
> interfaces for my 3 nics on the nokia. 

The indexmaker output doesn't look right, Cant say I've seen a 330 with
realteks on the motherboard, i.e mrtg appears to think it's being driven by
rl0. 

On a side note, you may find cacti to be a lot easier to use/maintain than
mrtg. 


Greg


> I have done a lot of 
> mrtg in the past, just not sure why it would be doing this, 
> but I will confirm my oids and see what I can come up with.
> Thanks to everyone who pointed me in the right direction to 
> get this thing working :)
> 
> Jason
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig FALCONER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:56 AM
> To: 'Jason Brunk'
> Subject: RE: [pfSense-discussion] nokie + ip330
> 
> No idea - but it looks like its returning "total traffic" 
> rather than "traffic for the period"
> 
> Are you sure you're not using the wrong snmp value ?
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Brunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 17 July 2005 12:46 p.m.
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [pfSense-discussion] nokie + ip330
> 
> 
> Ok, 
>       I got pfsense running on my ip330 and got it put back 
> together.  The
> only problem I have is that my snmp is returning some strange data.  
> 
> http://mrtg.whitetec.com/agent2.wtunits.com_3.html
> 
> there is no way my isp is giving me that much bandwidth.  
> That is the wan
> interface.  If I look at the lan interface.
> 
> http://mrtg.whitetec.com/agent2.wtunits.com_2.html  that is the lan
> interface.
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to