Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #5737

closed

Traffic Graph Table and Graph Inverted Values

Added by Lawrence Dudley over 9 years ago. Updated almost 9 years ago.

Status:
Not a Bug
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
-
Start date:
01/05/2016
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
Affected Architecture:

Description

The traffic graph and the table seem to use opposite values for In/Out. Bit odd.

I'm using a tiered outbound gateway, not sure if that has any impact on this.

Files

Download all files
Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 20.23.18.png (101 KB) Screen Shot 2016-01-05 at 20.23.18.png Lawrence Dudley, 01/05/2016 02:16 PM
Capture.PNG (39.2 KB) Capture.PNG johnny inc, 07/05/2016 03:49 PM
Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by Phillip Davis over 9 years ago

The In-Out on the graph is with-respect-to the pfSense interface, e.g. on LAN, In is traffic coming into pfSense from LAN devices (i.e. uploading to the internet) and Out is traffic sent out from pfSense to LAN devices (i.e. downloading from the internet).

The In-Out on the table is with-respect-to the particular client device, e.g. for a device on LAN, iN is traffic arriving at that device from pfSense (i.e. downloading from the internet) and Out is traffic sent by that device to pfSense (i.e. uploading to the internet).

Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by Lawrence Dudley over 9 years ago

Fair enough! I guess that sort of, kind of makes sense :)

Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by Lawrence Dudley over 9 years ago

I can't seem to close this issue - if you can then feel free to do so!

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by Jim Pingle over 9 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Not a Bug
Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by johnny inc almost 9 years ago

I was just getting ready to report this as a bug myself.

I guess my question is: how is this not considered a bug?

I get the explanation, but if we're going to display information side-by-side, we really should be using the same methodology on both. If this isn't a bug, where should we lobby to get this changed?

We've come a long way, let's not impede adoption rates for non-techie users who find stuff like this and immediately consider it a bug. Engineers (like myself) understand how great pfsense is and understand the reasoning for why it's currently being displayed this way. but..... put yourself into the shoes of a desktop support guy who's been installing Sonicwall's for the past 3 years and wants to try out pfsense for the first time -- he may see an issue like this as a bug and assume the product is buggy and not give us another chance.

I'm a looong time pfsense user, have no reason to ever use anything else -- just wanted to add my .02

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF