[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Call for censensus on path forward
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> I would really like to hear from a few operators (or
> even NM application developers) if they indeed find it
> a requirement to do polling a 1-second-granularty.
> It does not sound realistic to me... but who is me?
Although we do not do this here, I have heard of a product that does
very fast polling. Even that product is not at the one second poll
interval, however, it does poll in the 3-5 second interval ranges. That
said, it is the only such product I know of that uses such fast polling
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: zaterdag 21 september 2002 13:19
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: Call for censensus on path forward
> .. snip ..
> > But then why do we need to look at traffic at 1 second intervals?
> > If we are managing a reasonably fast network, and doing serious
> > management - then we probably need to look at traffic at even
> > smaller intervals. I will cite just two of the instances that we
> > have actually encountered.
> > a. Traffic graphs for a Gigabit network polled at, say, 1 minute
> > intervals are USELESS. What we end up seeing is the traffic
> > averaged over a minute! One never sees that real traffic
> > characteristics from these graphs. [Isn't there anyone out there
> > monitoring a high speed network ? I would be interested to know
> > how you do it.]
> > b. Our security applications need high resolution traffic monitoring.
> > There can be a sustained stealth DoS attack that is disrupting the
> > network and seriously degrading its performance (with short and
> > sharp bursts traffic) yet not a flicker shows on the
> > traffic graphs
> > to tell about the attack i.e. if you are monitoring at 5 minutes,
> > 1 minute or even several second intervals!
> > I would love to hear your comments.
> > Glenn
Carl W. Kalbfleisch