Hi Adam,


thanks for your response.


Also the RRD version I sent before gives an indication of no proper calculation in this case.

There's nowhere to be seen where that 255Mbps is coming from, if you check the max values of each interface for that same context.


Of course, I attached the accurate graphs as well now. I did not because no interfaces are shown in the accurate version. The point is that they are not accurate at all, in this case.


The traffic pattern corresponds, but it seems like the scale is based on 2 more zeroes. I would expect 2,55 Mbps usage, but the accurate graph shows about 255Mbps, while none of the interfaces in that aggregated bill has such a high traffic.


I think it's a bug, but I have no idea why it's popping up for this customer only.

All the others look fine to me. Can you help me to solve this issue please?


Best regards,


Marco





From: observium <observium-bounces@observium.org> on behalf of Adam Armstrong <adama@memetic.org>
Sent: 28 January 2015 19:10
To: Observium Network Observation System
Subject: Re: [Observium] Billing system aggregation
 
Hi,
 
This graph is useless in this context, since it's built from RRD data, and not the billing data, you need the "accurate" graph.
 
adam.
 
------ Original Message ------
From: "Marco Spicuglia" <Marco.Spicuglia@reasonnet.com>
To: "Observium Network Observation System" <observium@observium.org>
Sent: 1/20/2015 5:03:14 AM
Subject: [Observium] Billing system aggregation
 

Hello there,


I have been using the billing system for a while now and hardly had any issues.


However, it seems that one customer has an unexplainable aggregation and accurate graph data.

Please check the attached png. How can the 95% value be so high?


Something strange I noticed is that the vlan 44 interfaces are admin down in both devices.

However, Vlan44 on e04t shows nan values and it is blue (up) in the billing system overview for this bill.

Vlan44 on e03t shown instead as grey (correctly, as it's also admin down) but the values are 0, instead of nan.


Am I missing something? Is this a bug?


Thanks for your help.


Best regards,

Marco