I'm looking for some real user input from network operators:
To what degree would you want to be able to measure error_rates on device interfaces.
Many tools currently calculate 1% and above (so if you have .9% it is displayed as 0%) but it is quite possible users may want to measure fractional percentages as well.
Does anyone have any opinions/preferences based on your current experience?
Does it matter the type of interface you are managing (Ethernet, serial, etc.)?
Thanks - Dan Holmes
Many tools currently calculate 1% and above (so if you have .9% it is displayed as 0%) but it is quite possible users may want to measure fractional percentages as well.
Does anyone have any opinions/preferences based on your current experience?
This is a good question. First however, what is the time frame you're
measuring? If it is short, fractions of a percent may matter. If it
is long, a burst of errors due to a fairly severe may be appear to be
spread out.
Does it matter the type of interface you are managing (Ethernet, serial, etc.)?
Absolutely. It also depends on the media the properties of the link
path. I don't think there is a medium available that is infinitely
reliable so you're bound to have at least a few bit errors somewhere.
It also depends on the protocols used. With SNA for example, errors,
even small amounts would matter. Or to use a more modern example,
applications using UDP and no form of upper layer recovery, even low
error rates may significantly decrease overall performance.
Probably more important than the instaneous measure of errors would be
the rate of change over time.
Modern, reliable links should generate relatively few errors, but
it won't be zero. It probably wouldn't hurt to go at least two
decimal places for modern links (my guess). If nothing else, it
will help create a more accurate baseline of where errors are at.
Providing the management apps don't do that, perhaps they should at
at least tell you the total number of errors over the total number
of bits, bytes or packets.
John