On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:01:38AM -0400, jamal wrote: > > > > One probably stupid question: Why is not done similar sum in output of 'ip > > -s l l' ? > > "missed" is not really an error. It just means the driver was > overwhelmed and didnt even get the chance of seeing it whereas an error > is something the driver processed and saw a problem with it. > Thanks for explanation. But if I understand well, the packet is lost anyway, isn't it ? And when the packet is lost and I want to see all problems, I have to use detailed (ip -s -s ) stats because non-detailed (ip -s ) stats may hide problems. True ?
If yes then using non-detailed stats lacks sense. > > Imagine me :), I do 'ifconfig' and see dropped packets and then I do 'ip -s > > l l' > > and see zeros. I stare on it like an idiot. Where is bug ? ifconfig ? ip ? > > (man page of ip and 'ip -s -s l l' with missed packets stats saved me :). > > > > IMHO I think that comparable outputs of both programs should be still the > > same. > > I think ifconfig sums them up so the output formatting looks nice, but > ip is more accurate. These stats are from standard SNMP mibs (off top of > my head RFC1213 if it hasnt been obsoleted by something) - look at > InIFxxxx stats. > I will try to look at. Thanks! > cheers, > jamal > regards, -- Milan Kocian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
