Is there something that I'm missing here? When I try to sort the "bytes received" column when using the Real Time Interface Monitor it doesn't sort correctly from least to most or from most to least. It seems like it's some random type of sort going on. Now that I've looked at it again, all of the columns that contain values sort like this. I'm running SolarWinds Engineer's Toolset v9.
It might be helpful if you could post a screenshot of what you are seeing- When you reply -> select Options tab-> Upload file to post inside the thread.
I would rather not post a screenshot. I'll try to explain more in depth. When I click on the "bytes received" column to sort from highest to lowest or lowest to highest they don't order properly. For example, heres a few lines of what I get when trying to sort from highest to lowest.
382 Kbps
0 bps
369 Kbps
265 bps
240 bps
8 bps
144Kbps
Seems to me the 0 bps should be near the bottom, but instead 0's are spread throughout the "report".
That was a bug in previous releases. Are you seeing this with version 9.2?
I just tested with 9.2 and then reviewed the code. Here is what I'm seeing. The sort is doing a string compare on the values. So, the sort doesn't properly sort Kbps vs. bps. Also if the value is empty, then it doesn't seem to get sorted at all. (Which doesn't apply in the "bytes received" column because "0 bps" is the empty value). Now, keep in mind that the sort only occurs at the moment that the column is clicked. The data is not resorted by that column when the device is polled again.
Note: In a string compare values would be sorted like the following:
1, 11, 112, 2, 20, 22, 3, 30000, 4, etc..
I can enter in a bug for this behavior, but I'm not seeing them sorted in an inconsistant manner, other then how I described.
Thanks,
Version 8 seems to do it nicely, why wouldn't the sort function be the same? It makes it a whole lot easier when your trying to look through 100+ interfaces to see which one is processing the most traffic.
Yea, I'm surprised as well. I don't have enough history with the company to know the answer to that question. I'll go see if I can find the code that did that sorting.
I've found the bug. It wasn't that v9.x lost the sorting code, there was just an obsure bug that caused the sorting code to sort on a string instead of a number. I have corrected this bug and have checked it in for our next release.