RE: [bwm-tools-tech] Graphing Traffic

[Adam M. T. <ad...@co...>]

I thought that the nfmark option was for shaping. I don't want to do any
shaping of the packets. I just want to log and graph. I'm not sure if
this is what you meant because I didn't investigate nfmark all that much
and I'm still not quite sure what bwm_tools does. No offense to the
creator, but the documentation is a bit sparse on this program. It does
a great job of explaining how to use everything when you want to shape
and integrate it with iptables, but there's nothing on just graphing.

As for your other suggestions, I've looked everywhere for a tool that
will allow me to track voip usage and graph it. Unfortunately, not many
free programs can do this that I know of. Ipfm is for total usage and
won't let me specify voip traffic. Mrtg and rrdtool only graph data you
already have. I'd need to be able to pull that voip traffic from the
network in order to use mrtg to graph it. I'm looking at bandwidthd but
I fear it may have the same results as ntop did when I tried running it.
It tries to do too much at one time and overloads. It doesn't help when
a program tries writing the data, producing the web page, producing the
png, and servicing web requests all at the same time; especially when
I'm graphing traffic from over 5000 subscribers at one time.
Thank you very much for the suggestions though. I'm going to investigate
bandwidthd a bit further. If you could explain a little bit more on what
you meant by using nfmark, that may help too. Like I said, still a bit
lost on how bwm_tools works.
Thanks for your time.

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: go0ogl3 [mailto:go...@gm...]=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:18 AM
To: Adam M. Towarnyckyj
Cc: bwm...@li...
Subject: Re: [bwm-tools-tech] Graphing Traffic

  I'm new to bwm but if you really want to use bwm tools to graph voip
traffic, why don't u use the nfmark? You only have to mark the packets
from the voip and shape them with bwm tools. This way you can also
graph that voip traffic.
  =20
  As an alternate solution you can use ipfm, bandwidthd, mrtg+rrdtool
or one of the many others.

Google

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:46:55 -0700, Adam M. Towarnyckyj
<ad...@co...> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Thanks to all for your help in getting this up and running for me. Now
I
> have some technical questions involving the graphing portion. As
stated in
> an earlier post, I am trying to graph voip traffic over our network to
see
> what kind of usage we're running into. All I need is bandwidth usage
in
> bytes for any given time period. Nigel tells me this is possible. I
set up
> my config file as follows:
>=20
> =20
>=20
> <firewall>
>=20
>   <global>
>=20
>     <modules>
>=20
>       <load name=3D"ip_queue"/>
>=20
>     </modules>
>=20
>     <class name=3D"voip_traffic">
>=20
>       <address name=3D"voip_dst" proto=3D"udp" =
src-port=3D"10000:20000" />
>=20
>     </class>
>=20
>   </global>
>=20
>   <traffic>
>=20
>     <flow name=3D"voip_traffic_out" report-timeout=3D"60">
>=20
>     voip_traffic
>=20
>     </flow>
>=20
>   </traffic>
>=20
> </firewall>
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Question one starts here. Is it ok for me to use the standard symbol
for
> specifying a range of ports like that? (10000:20000) If that's not
correct,
> is there another way to go about doing this? I'd rather not go through
and
> write an <address> for each port from 10000 to 20000. J
>=20
> Question two is "what am I doing wrong?" because this isn't working.
"bwmd"
> loads, but there is no output to any log files even though I have
> "report-timeout" specified. I don't want to do any sort of limiting of
this
> traffic; I just want to log it.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> If you have any suggestions on what I can change to make this work,
they'd
> be very much appreciated. If I can't get bwm_tools to do what I'm
looking
> for, I have no other ideas on how to accomplish this. Thanks!
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Adam Towarnyckyj