Hello, My concern was for the amount of resources NTOP would end up using with the currently volume of traffic we have going through any one link. Basically, there will be at least 3000 hosts totaling around 25 megabits of traffic at any given time. In my experience with ntop for short-term monitoring, I found that in these circumstances, the process size and cpu utilization were quite high. I've been using bandwidthd to collect data and then just rsyncing that data to a different server that actually graphs the data. I'd like to use ntop for it's detailed tracking capabilities, but given the resource utilization issues I've seen in the past, am not sure how feasible this would be. How many hosts and how much traffic is currently going through your setup? It's very possible that I may just need to tweak settings somewhere to improve performance. J.N. On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 14:28 -0700, Michael Gale wrote: > Hello, > > I am not sure I follow ... NTOP takes care of providing the stats, so > if you firewall box or ntop server can handle your network. > > The storage box can be what and where ever ... for example you could > have a low end box somewhere on the network that makes the http > connection, downloads the stats and stores them in a database. > > Then you only need a simple method to display them when needed. If you > are a large company it might be easier to setup multiple ntop servers > and have all the stats stored in a central location. > > Michael. > > > > J. Nerius wrote: > > How many hosts and how much traffic are you running through it? I've > > wanted to come up with a solution similar to the one you've described to > > replace my current bandwidthd setup but I'm thinking that my network may > > be too large with too much traffic to support something like that > > without building a monster box just to capture the stats. > > > > J.N. > > > > On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 13:09 -0700, Michael Gale wrote:
