Ask Slashdot: How To Monitor Your Own Bandwidth Usage?

Vrtigo1 writes "With many ISPs either already using bandwidth caps or talking about them, I was wondering how other Slashdot readers are keeping tabs on how much data is being transferred through their home Internet connections. None of the consumer routers I've used seem to make this information easily accessible. I'd like some way to see exactly how much data has been sent and received by the WAN port facing my ISP's modem so I can compare the numbers I get with the numbers they give me. I don't want to pay for their modem firmware updates and other network management traffic, so I'd like to see how the two numbers line up."

Comments

again?

[demonbug]

Tomato.

DD-WRT.

Re:again?

[capnkr]

Either of those, and a Linksys WRT54GL router, dirt simple to set up. More info here.

Re:again?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

I'll throw my two cents in here too. DD-WRT has been rock-solid for me, and has some rather nice graphs for viewing bandwidth.

Re:again?

[nschubach]

I really hope Cisco puts out an updated version of this router. This thing has to be their best seller (I'm going out on a limb and stating that the customization ability is key to that) and I can see why it's been around since 2002. I have two of them myself I continually mess around with. They still kick out newer revisions, but they haven't really changed much in the line of overall capability. Just sit down, draw up plans for a fully third party flashable update and make it awesome hardware wise. Let the guys at Tomato/DDWRT do their thing.

Re:again?

[cayenne8]

You know...these hardware suggestions are helpful.

But why not just address the root problem here...the capping.

Why not just pony up about $69/mo...and get a business connection for your home.

I have mine with Cox cable and it is great. I get roughly 10-14 down and 5-10 up...at times I've measured it. I have no caps. I can run all the servers I want to. I even get a low level SLA, and the few times I've needed help, they are on the phone with me almost any time I need it..and they have even sent people out to the poles around my places when I needed help in the middle of the night even.

So, why not get a connection like that? Its not that expensive, and you get the bandwidth you want plus a few perks.

Re:again?

[capnkr]

That's a far different experience from what I have seen when using this combo. Without knowing more specifics, your issues could be the result of a number of different reasons: build version, incorrect installation process, overclocking, environment, etc... A search to determine what exactly is causing your issue(s) might help you figure out how to fix them - I don't think your experience is typical or common even. Good luck.

Tomato

[Krellion]

I use Tomato firmware on a WRT54G v2 router. It has many ways of viewing used bandwidth.

Why would you think the numbers would match up?

[cdrguru]

Your ISP is likely not counting bytes that transfer through a connection to your modem. They are probably using a number of interesting tricks instead, probably mostly because whatever they bought into does something different. At a minimum counting packets and saying they are all MTU-sized would give different results and would eliminate the overhead of counting bytes.

If you are really, really nice about it, they might tell you what they are really measuring. But they probably will not. Even if you have a bandwidth cap in place, they probably aren't going give you detailed information about what they are measuring and how they are measuring it. Mostly, this would be for fear that you will use that information to figure out some way to circumvent it. In this case information certainly equals power - they have it and do not want you to have it.

So, while your router can count bytes with the right software, it probably isn't going to match up with what they say you are using, assuming they report it to you. My guess is your number will be lower, but it could go either way. In any event, the only number that means anything in your relationship with your ISP is their number. You will not be able to convince them that your number is "right" or "more correct" than their number.

Unless you need a number for your own management purposes - like finding out your neighbor creating 45% of the traffic on your connection - I'd say this is a pointless exercise.

Re:Why would you think the numbers would match up?

[Archangel Michael]

If that is the case, (and I would assume the asshats would do this) then they are opening up themselves to a huge lawsuit. If you're going to measure "bandwidth" and put limits based on usage in terms of bytes (giga/tera) then you best be measuring bytes, and not the packets * MTU, which is a gross over simplification of the measure. There is no way that packets * MTU can be said to equate to anything in "bytes" except for pointy headed managers.

There are too many programs using low level states that need keep alive packets going, that don't measure in MTU size units. MTU is ~1400 bytes, and ping uses 32 bytes ... yeah that will work.

Netgear N600

[jayhawk88]

If you're not comfortable/willing to install a custom firmware, the Netgear N600 has a meter built in.

Your cap starts today.

[custerfluck]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/14/1444213/ATampT-To-Introduce-Broadband-Caps

Re:Verizon Fios

[Zinho]

I'm on Verizon, too, and they have no problem with me daisy-chaining my own router (DD-WRT) onto theirs. I agree that it might be fun to hook straight into their fiber modem with CAT-5 and skip the business of having coax and a second router in the loop, but it's their network and their modem. I'll get more huffy about it if/when I transition to IPv6 and don't want two layers of NAT between me and the network. In the mean time, though, it's trivial to shut off the transmitter for the router they provided and set up one that I can manage competently.

Use rfc1149 as an aide

[davidwr]

I put a pair of RFC1149-to-Ethernet gateways between my border router and my cable modem.

I then estimate the number of packets by measuring the amount of poultry poop between the gateway devices.

I multiply this by an estimated average packet size and I have a pretty good estimate of the number of bytes transferred plus the number of bytes lost.

Unfortunately I'm still trying to figure out my packet-loss ratio. Once I've got that down I'll have a better handle on how much traffic is going in and out of the modem.