Hi all, I have my ADSL services in a weathermap and keep seeing the above log message, like so:

07/08/2010 02:32:37 PM - WEATHERMAP: Poller[0] [Map 12] xxxx: ColourFromPercent: Clipped rtr-03_us 1020000% to 100%
07/08/2010 02:32:37 PM - WEATHERMAP: Poller[0] [Map 12] xxxx: ColourFromPercent: Clipped rtr-02_ds 23913000% to 100%
07/08/2010 02:32:37 PM - WEATHERMAP: Poller[0] [Map 5] xxxx: NewColourFromPercent: Clipped rtr-01_us 886000% to 100%

As you can see, these large numbers are either the upstream or downstream speed of the ADSL connection. I was hoping to do something about it as these messages are filling up my log file and I have trouble seeing anything else.

Thanks in advance.

You should get that fixed with BANDWITH and SCALE directives for your link/nodes.
Check http://www.network-weathermap.com/manua ... K_USESCALE

Thanks for the link! The thing is though, I am using NODE's, not LINKs so if I understand correctly, I cannot increase the "bandwidth" of the node and the node's scale is only between 0% and 100% (which is logical) but when the ADSL's data comes through, the routers pass the upstream and downstream traffic in bits (or bytes?) which comes up as 23913000% (depending on the router I am looking at) so this goes well about the 100% limit in the scale and therefore logs the error mentioned in my above post.

To resolve the issue it looks like I'll need to ugprade the plugin to 0.97 and use the "absolute" keyword in the scale. That way I can specify a scale well above 100 as it is no longer a percentage.

Anyways, how do I find out if my Cacti version (0.8.7b) is compatible with the latest version of the Weathermaps plugin?

You don't need 0.97a or absolute.

Use MAXVALUE instead of BANDWIDTH for a node. The percentage does indeed go from 0 to 100%, but you get to choose what it is 100% *of*.

Also, bear in mind that a node only has one colour, so if you are looking to colour code the node, you'll need to decide whether that's against the incoming or outgoing bandwidth.

This has been made possible by the fact that the nearby exchange of Sittingbourne was already scheduled to be enabled for faster broadband using fibre-to-the-cabinet technology. Iwade had already set forth plans to improve their local broadband with a 10-person strong committee who had applied to Kent County Council for community projects. One option being investigated was the deployment of satellite based broadband, but when the nearby exchange of Sittingbourne was announced for an upgrade, it made sense to try and connect up to BT's nearby high-speed network.<a href="http://www.power4game.com/">wow gold</a>[/b]

It's going to depend on our ability to minimise the cost of deployment. If we see more people signing up, that may change the economics. But there'll still be a gap. The fastest way to find out how big that gap is is to get on and build the network.

I feel the 66 per cent roll-out will be a minimum, and I would fully expect us to go beyond that. But it's dependent on alternative sources of funding. The vast majority is likely to be public."<a href="http://www.power4game.com/">wcheap wow gold</a>

PC Pro have looked into the pricing of BT's fibre-to-the-cabinet offerings and are wondering if the numbers add up. Extrapolating figures based on the cost to Iwade and estimating the amount of business premises across the country, they arrive at around £1.622 billion for a nationwide deployment of fibre-to-the-cabinet technology, far below BT and the Broadband Stakeholder Groups estimated £5.1 billion. They accept that the numbers are "dubious" and this is particularly so as they will have failed to include a contribution toward the cost of getting fibre to a nearby area as is the case with Iwade. The numbers are, however, interesting considering that Iwade would be considered as one of the 'final third' of the country which wouldn't expect to get connected without additional funding. There will at least be many more places like this which will be able to connect relatively cheaply.cheap wow gold[/url]

Worked perfectly, thanks a lot Howie.

By the way, one other issue I found was that I am getting these log messages:

07/12/2010 01:31:32 PM - WEATHERMAP: Poller[0] [Map 13] .htaccess: Unrecognised config on line 3: Deny from all
07/12/2010 01:31:32 PM - WEATHERMAP: Poller[0] [Map 13] .htaccess: Unrecognised config on line 2: Order deny,allow

My first question is, how do I find which of my maps is "Map 13"? My other question is, why is it reading the .htaccess file?

Thanks!!

13 refers to the number in the weathermap_maps table id column, if you have phpmyadmin or know how to use MySQL CLI you can look is up.
As for the reason why your .htaccess is read, you defined is as a map (which got ID 13).

Cool, thanks for the quick reply.



Sorry, I'm not too sure what you mean?

You clicked Add on the Weathermap Manage screen, then picked .htaccess, which is an Apache configuration file, and not a Weathermap map file. So Weathermap is having difficulty reading this file as a map. Nothing is added automatically, so you (or someone else with admin rights) must have added it.

ah ok. I have read the file and all it has is an "allow" and "deny" line, and that's it. I tried renaming the file to .htaccess.backup and then Cacti threw up another weathermap error, however, that must be because the guy before me would have added it as a weathermap as you have suggested in your post.

I'll remove it tomorrow the weathermap's control panel and then it should be all good. Thanks a lot for the info Howie!

And then rename it back to .htaccess - it's there to stop people being able to view all your map config files.

OK great, that's all done now. Worked like a charm thanks Howie!