![]() In order for us to understand what we are dealing with and to troubleshoot the problem, we make use of packet analyzers such as Wireshark in order to perform network analysis. Does that make it a better ( more accurate) graph or a worse graph? I want to clearly communicate (and understand) the change that was made, but I also don't want to mislead (them or myself) as to how effective it was.There are many things that can go wrong within a network. Is there maybe a command line tool that will do that kind of analysis for me? or just some window in wireshark that I'm missing that will let me get stats like that for a given period of time?Īnd of course pretty graphs? Or even something that will give me a csv or something with values from the filters I give it? With that I could just throw it in excel and go from there.ĮDIT: Also, if I use smoothing in my graph it shows a much, much stronger difference between the before and after captures. I'm sure I could try to slice the pcaps up, filter out everything before/after the tests, and just try and get a count that way, but it feels like there should be a better way. Something like: Test 2:ĭup-acks during test (packets per second):ĭup-acks during test other endpoints (packets per second): Hell, even getting that information into a table would be awesome. dynamic? integrated? opposite of me drawing lines across screen captures in MSPaint? ![]() It get's the job done, sort of, but I was hoping for something that was a bit more, um. That works for me, but isn't going to fly when I show this to anyone else. I can see the results in the capture IO graph, but only if I squint and use the logarithmic scale and wiggle the graph back and forth so that the peaks are next to the scale on the side of the graph. So I'm having some trouble trying to effectively quantify the results of a network modification.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |