«

After almost one full month of broadband I wanted to see how my
connection slowed down once I reached 4Gb for the month. Went over it
last night, according to NetMeter, but no slowdown. So I checked my
usage figures on IHUG. NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
IHUG does?

In article <>,
GraB <> wrote:

>NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
>over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
>IHUG does?

That's a difference of around 10%, whereas the difference between
gibibytes and gigabytes is more like 7.5%.

Can you post more accurate values? Then we can compare.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:44 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<_zealand> wrote:

>In article <>,
> GraB <> wrote:
>
>>NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
>>over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
>>IHUG does?
>
>That's a difference of around 10%, whereas the difference between
>gibibytes and gigabytes is more like 7.5%.
>
>Can you post more accurate values? Then we can compare.

IHUG: 3624Mb
NetMeter: 4.078Gb

GraB wrote:
> After almost one full month of broadband I wanted to see how my
> connection slowed down once I reached 4Gb for the month. Went over it
> last night, according to NetMeter, but no slowdown. So I checked my
> usage figures on IHUG. NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
> over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
> IHUG does?
The most likely answer lies in at what layer they are recording your usage figure.
It is probably at layer two or three and will not count some of the traffic
your net meter does.

--
>>Follow ups may be set to a single group when appropriate!
================================================== ====================
| Local 38.2330S, 175.8670E |
================================================== ====================
*Slow day Posts Blog*
Pictorial Amusement from the web at http://nzcollector.blogspot.com

In article <>,
GraB <> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:44 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In article <>,
>> GraB <> wrote:
>>
>>>NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
>>>over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
>>>IHUG does?
>>
>>That's a difference of around 10%, whereas the difference between
>>gibibytes and gigabytes is more like 7.5%.
>>
>>Can you post more accurate values? Then we can compare.
>
>IHUG: 3624Mb

Assuming this is 3624MiB, that translates to 3800MB near enough.

>NetMeter: 4.078Gb

This is significantly more than 3624MiB and 3624MB.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:34 UTC, Collector¯NZ
<> wrote:

> GraB wrote:
> > After almost one full month of broadband I wanted to see how my
> > connection slowed down once I reached 4Gb for the month. Went over it
> > last night, according to NetMeter, but no slowdown. So I checked my
> > usage figures on IHUG. NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
> > over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
> > IHUG does?
> The most likely answer lies in at what layer they are recording your usage figure.
> It is probably at layer two or three and will not count some of the traffic
> your net meter does.

Another possible explanation would be that the New Zealand traffic was
either free or charged at a lower rate (eg 10% of international
traffic). Lots of ISPs seem to do this.

"Stephen Worthington" <> wrote in message
news:1120055932.1efc3b0d4c8ef2bd85a8dbb07c112181@t eranews...
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:34 UTC, Collector¯NZ
> <> wrote:
>
> > GraB wrote:
> > > After almost one full month of broadband I wanted to see how my
> > > connection slowed down once I reached 4Gb for the month. Went over it
> > > last night, according to NetMeter, but no slowdown. So I checked my
> > > usage figures on IHUG. NetMeter says just over 4Gb but IHUG says just
> > > over 3.6Gb. Does NetMeter measure in metric rather than binary that
> > > IHUG does?
> > The most likely answer lies in at what layer they are recording your
usage figure.
> > It is probably at layer two or three and will not count some of the
traffic
> > your net meter does.
>
> Another possible explanation would be that the New Zealand traffic was
> either free or charged at a lower rate (eg 10% of international
> traffic). Lots of ISPs seem to do this.
>
>

Or Netmeter is counting non-routed/routable traffic. Which is probably more
likely.