Monitor amount of traffic on local network interface card

General chat about HostMonitor (all messages posted before March 07, 2003 available here).
Locked
gaet
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 6:00 pm

Post by gaet »

Hello,

I would like to monitor the amount of traffic on my local network interface card and take action if this amount of traffic is less than a configured value ?
To achieve this, I have configured a performance counter on my local machine (running XP) to monitor the number of packets sent on my network interface card. Sometimes, host monitor seems to be blocked and the result of all of my tests are in the "unknow" status. The only way to restore it is to reboot my computer.
Is it normal ?
I've read that there are known problem with performance counters. Is there another way to do it ?

Thanks
User avatar
hmo
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by hmo »

Alex told me this:

HostMonitor has several ways to work with
pdh.dll

a.. MultiThread mode: HostMonitor works
almost according to Microsoft
documentation with some workaround to avoid
most likely problems. HM loads pdh.dll at
once and uses it all the time. This method
fast because HM can start several tests
simultaneously. If everything will work
correctly on your system, use this method
(by default HostMonitor uses this method).

b.. OneByOne mode: Using this method HM will
start Performance Counter tests one by one
and reload pdh.dll every time. This method
slow (when you setup Performance Counter
test using Test Properties dialog program
even can hang for 1-2 min) but using this
method you will avoid some problems due to a
buggy pdh.dll

c.. Smart mode: With this method HM will try
to detect when pdh.dll need to be reloaded.
To change mode, add line "PerfWorkMode=N" to
hostmon.ini file into [Misc] section and
restart HostMonitor. N is number of the

mode: 0 - MultiThread
mode: 1 - OneByOne mode,
mode: 2 - Smart mode

You can try to set "OneByOne" mode, it will
be even more slow but can be more reliable.

I did find a "better" performance by setting value to 1 - ie. OneByOne mode!

Cheers,
Hans Mosegaard
Locked