Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > NetMeter: Metric or Binary?

Reply
Thread Tools

NetMeter: Metric or Binary?

 
 
GraB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2005
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?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
GraB <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
GraB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2005
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:44 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> GraB <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Collector╗NZ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2005
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
GraB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:56:44 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> GraB <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stephen Worthington
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-29-2005
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:34 UTC, Collector»NZ
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2005
"Stephen Worthington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1120055932.1efc3b0d4c8ef2bd85a8dbb07c112181@t eranews...
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:34 UTC, Collector»NZ
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BGP - metric David Hill Cisco 5 06-26-2009 10:05 PM
Metric Changed =?Utf-8?B?RWR3aW4gTG9v?= Wireless Networking 1 07-07-2005 02:00 PM
explicitly set metric for one static route Daniel Eyholzer Cisco 10 12-08-2004 03:49 AM
Backup route with better eigrp metric Daniel Eyholzer Cisco 3 12-06-2004 04:57 AM
automatic default route propagation into RIP: default metric Ben Low Cisco 2 12-28-2003 03:57 AM



Advertisments