If I was graphing an ever increasing number, when it resets to zero, it
would keep rising and rising again and keep repeating, however that is not
the case after it hits that point, it drops to zero, this is true, but it
then graphs the proper value.  It was graphing fine until I disconnected the
wan today and now its growing again.  I have done a lot of mrtg over the
last 5 years working in a data center.  I have the right oids, there is
something the pfsense is doing and I am not sure if it's the OS or if it has
something to do with the IP330 I have.  I am leaning towards something on
the IP330 confusing things.  

Thanks everyone for the insight though :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:22 AM
To: Jason Brunk
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] mrtg graphs

No your graping a value that is constantly increasing then resetting
to 0.  Thats not a network interface.

On 7/22/05, Jason Brunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am not graphing the wrong values because if you look at my graph now you
> will see it is doing the proper values, all I did was went to the mrtg log
> and removed the large numbers.
> 
> Jason
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Ullrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:36 PM
> To: Jason Brunk
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] mrtg graphs
> 
> Your graphing the wrong values.   I would suggest using pfstat from
> our packages collection.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> On 7/21/05, Jason Brunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok, here is something odd.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://mrtg.whitetec.com/agent2.wtunits.com_3.html
> >
> >
> >
> > you can see it was doing some strange ever increasing number.  Then when
> > both in and out hit around 58MB they both dropped and went back to the
> right
> > values.  The first one dropped after I was asleep last night, and the
> second
> > while I was at work today.  Anyone have any thoughts at all on why my
> > pfsense would do that?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason
> 
>

Reply via email to