On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:07:28PM -0800, William Bauer wrote:
I've been meaning to ask the same thing, for two reasons. One is just due to typical abbreviations, such as "m" for milli, and "M" for mega, the other is because for us the error graphs appear way off, even though other graphs are not. We might have 100,000 absolute errors on a port, but the error graph will read about "15m". I find the difference in the absolute versus graphed numbers confusing. Perhaps it's an averaged amount over the sample period? If so, can we get actual numbers?
Part of the problem might be the only ports we have with errors are Brocade ports; our Cisco ports don't typically accumulate errors. Perhaps the Brocade error counters are atypical, even though "good" traffic counters are correct.
The rates are always in terms of seconds (average over the polling period). So when something like an error is less frequent than once per second, the rate is a decimal per second. So the reciprocal will be average seconds per error which is easier to think of in this situation, or multiplying by 300 to put it in terms of the sample period will also help. -Nick