On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 05:14:08PM -0500, Cedric Veilleux wrote: > Herbert, > > Thank you for the clarifications. > > > do your guest _share_ IPs between them? > > if not, the best and simplest way to get proper > > on-wire accounting is to add an iptables account > > rule, and feed that into your collecting/graphing > > solution > > OK, I will investigate this solution. > > > > > Are there known problems with the vserver traffic > > > accounting via proc? > > > > besides the fact, that there is no traffic accounting > > for Linux-VServer guests via proc, no :) > > > > the cacct entry in /proc/virtual/<xid> accounts the > > sockets (send/receive/fail) of a guest, which can be > > a lot less than the actual on-wire traffic (due to > > headers, retransmissions, etc) > > OMG! Well this does come as a surprise to me. okay, probably I should rephrase/clarify that a little more here: processes use sockets to transfer data on the local machine and via network. network sockets usually result in network packets being transferred via network interfaces :) > The header of the cacct file reads: > > Type recv #/bytes send #/bytes fail #/bytes > > So I assumed the first number was the number of packets > and second the number of bytes transferred.. that assumption is correct, but it accounts the data handled by the sockets, not by the network interfaces ... > I guess the collectd people assumed the same thing since > the generated graphs under a default install does show > traffic as bit/s as well as total amount transferred > (in/outgoing) directly from these numbers. nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't claim it is on-wire network traffic, IMHO :) best, Herbert > Thank you, > > Cedric > > > > > >