trafficwatcher - Project Hosting on Google Code

Earlier this year Sep 04, 2009 issue 12 (Trafficwatcher does not limit my speed/connection) Status changed by tortoisesvn - It's only a watcher, not a limiter. TrafficWatcher does not limit the speed at all, and it also should not do that. Status: Invalid It's only a watcher, not a limiter. TrafficWatcher does not limit the speed at all, and it also should not do that. Status: Invalid Aug 25, 2009 issue 12 (Trafficwatcher does not limit my speed/connection) reported by mil...@gmx.de - What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Executing trafficwatcher 2. Checking with /without any kind of Online Speed-Check e.g. http://www.speed-check.net/ 3. No effect. What is the expected output? What do you see instead? After selecting my network device and changing the tab, device is saved. Current and detailed Internet traffic are displaying speed, but speed is not limited to the Internet connection speed chosen on options tab. There is no effect with or without program What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? No effect neither version 2.0 nor 2.01 Using Win XP SP2, WinPcap 2.3 Please provide any additional information below. No difference by trying option: starting with windows. Neither by changing speed and tab. What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Executing trafficwatcher 2. Checking with /without any kind of Online Speed-Check e.g. http://www.speed-check.net/ 3. No effect. What is the expected output? What do you see instead? After selecting my network device and changing the tab, device is saved. Current and detailed Internet traffic are displaying speed, but speed is not limited to the Internet connection speed chosen on options tab. There is no effect with or without program What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? No effect neither version 2.0 nor 2.01 Using Win XP SP2, WinPcap 2.3 Please provide any additional information below. No difference by trying option: starting with windows. Neither by changing speed and tab. Jun 19, 2009 issue 11 (Log traffic per process) reported by dseaward.sjsoft - It would be great to be able to view a breakdown of traffic per process. (Is that at all feasible?) This way one could figure out which applications were generating the most traffic, and be aware of background tools that were generating traffic. If the history enhancement were developed, one could also view traffic per process over time (e.g. in raw numbers, or visualized in a pie chart). It would be great to be able to view a breakdown of traffic per process. (Is that at all feasible?) This way one could figure out which applications were generating the most traffic, and be aware of background tools that were generating traffic. If the history enhancement were developed, one could also view traffic per process over time (e.g. in raw numbers, or visualized in a pie chart). Jun 03, 2009 issue 10 (Auto scale) Labels changed by tortoisesvn - Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Jun 03, 2009 issue 10 (Auto scale) commented on by moshe.gottlieb - Saved as a defect by mistake, it's an enhancement suggestion. Saved as a defect by mistake, it's an enhancement suggestion. Jun 03, 2009 issue 10 (Auto scale) reported by moshe.gottlieb - Auto scaling of the adapter speeds would be nice. No need to select adapter speed that way. Also, while internet connections are often high bandwidth connections, use can be very low (streaming music, for instance would generally consume 96- 128kbit), and thus hardly visible. Same goes for LAN. While most adapters are 1GBit adapters, they often communicate with wireless LAN clients which have a much lower bandwidth, could also happen because of low bandwidth routers and 10,000 (probably more) other reasons. Anyways, auto scaling takes a period of time and determines the max bandwidth throughout this period. This (plus a bit of extra, most often) serves as a reference point. Auto scaling of the adapter speeds would be nice. No need to select adapter speed that way. Also, while internet connections are often high bandwidth connections, use can be very low (streaming music, for instance would generally consume 96- 128kbit), and thus hardly visible. Same goes for LAN. While most adapters are 1GBit adapters, they often communicate with wireless LAN clients which have a much lower bandwidth, could also happen because of low bandwidth routers and 10,000 (probably more) other reasons. Anyways, auto scaling takes a period of time and determines the max bandwidth throughout this period. This (plus a bit of extra, most often) serves as a reference point. May 30, 2009 r63 (Sign all binaries from the build script.) committed by tortoisesvn - Sign all binaries from the build script. Sign all binaries from the build script. May 21, 2009 r62 (Adjust the bugtraq:logregex to help with the new format: htt...) committed by tortoisesvn - Adjust the bugtraq:logregex to help with the new format: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/IssueTracker#Integration_with_version_control Adjust the bugtraq:logregex to help with the new format: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/IssueTracker#Integration_with_version_control May 03, 2009 issue 9 (Store traffic history) Labels changed by tortoisesvn - Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect May 03, 2009 issue 8 (Watch multiple adapters at once, including total) Labels changed by tortoisesvn - Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect May 03, 2009 issue 9 (Store traffic history) reported by ancient.mariner - Would it be possible to store a traffic history? This way the total could reflect not just the current session, but: * total for the current day/week/month * total for the last 24 hours/7 days/30 days * average for all of the above Ideally there would be graphs to supplement these, but that could be another issue :) Thanks for a great tool! Would it be possible to store a traffic history? This way the total could reflect not just the current session, but: * total for the current day/week/month * total for the last 24 hours/7 days/30 days * average for all of the above Ideally there would be graphs to supplement these, but that could be another issue :) Thanks for a great tool! May 03, 2009 issue 8 (Watch multiple adapters at once, including total) reported by ancient.mariner - Would it be possible to watch multiple adapters at once? At the moment I use a laptop with both LAN and wireless adapters, and it is possible for me to have both active at the same time. If this were possible, it would also be neccessary to be able to view the total amount of traffic, as well as the individual portions. Would it be possible to watch multiple adapters at once? At the moment I use a laptop with both LAN and wireless adapters, and it is possible for me to have both active at the same time. If this were possible, it would also be neccessary to be able to view the total amount of traffic, as well as the individual portions. May 02, 2009 issue 7 (Not working out of the box) reported by erik.koyama.tilt - No traffic is watched without additional configuration after installation. It would be helpful if an e.g. an installer was included prompting you for the adapter to select as the last step. What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Download and install trafficwatcher What is the expected output? What do you see instead? I expect to see traffic right away. Instead I see nothing until I have selected the adapter in "Options" What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - trafficwatcher 2.0.1.58 - Windows XP SP2 P.S: Thank you very much for this tool. No traffic is watched without additional configuration after installation. It would be helpful if an e.g. an installer was included prompting you for the adapter to select as the last step. What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Download and install trafficwatcher What is the expected output? What do you see instead? I expect to see traffic right away. Instead I see nothing until I have selected the adapter in "Options" What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - trafficwatcher 2.0.1.58 - Windows XP SP2 P.S: Thank you very much for this tool. Mar 18, 2009 issue 6 (Feature Request: Possibility to treat some Internet IPs as L...) Labels changed by tortoisesvn - Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Mar 16, 2009 issue 6 (Feature Request: Possibility to treat some Internet IPs as L...) commented on by amx3000 - it's not a Defect. Sorry! it's not a Defect. Sorry! Mar 16, 2009 issue 6 (Feature Request: Possibility to treat some Internet IPs as L...) reported by amx3000 - It will be great if I could specify IPs for treating it as a local network. Useful for web/ftp servers in local network with real IP. It will be great if I could specify IPs for treating it as a local network. Useful for web/ftp servers in local network with real IP. Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) Status changed by tortoisesvn - Thanks a lot for your debugging. Committed the changes in r61. Status: Fixed Thanks a lot for your debugging. Committed the changes in r61. Status: Fixed Mar 12, 2009 r61 (Patch from fastcat: Fixed issue #5: Tray tooltip truncated a...) committed by tortoisesvn - Patch from fastcat: Fixed issue #5 : Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars Patch from fastcat: Fixed issue #5 : Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) changed by tortoisesvn - Status: Started Owner: tortoisesvn Status: Started Owner: tortoisesvn Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) commented on by fastcat - That makes no difference for me. More digging, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383745.aspx What did work for me was the following settings: WINVER 0x0501 _WIN32_WINNT 0x0501 _WIN32_WINDOWS 0x0501 Which seem to cause (among other things?) NTDDI_VERSION to get set down into XP land, which prevents the extra hBalloonIcon member from being added to NOTIFYICONDATA, which thus stops XP from getting confused. That makes no difference for me. More digging, see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383745.aspx What did work for me was the following settings: WINVER 0x0501 _WIN32_WINNT 0x0501 _WIN32_WINDOWS 0x0501 Which seem to cause (among other things?) NTDDI_VERSION to get set down into XP land, which prevents the extra hBalloonIcon member from being added to NOTIFYICONDATA, which thus stops XP from getting confused. Mar 12, 2009 r60 (Set the IE version to 0x0600.) committed by tortoisesvn - Set the IE version to 0x0600. Set the IE version to 0x0600. Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) commented on by tortoisesvn - Since you can debug the problem, can you please try changing the stdafx.h file like this: #ifndef _WIN32_IE # define _WIN32_IE 0x0600 #endif and see if that makes a difference? Since you can debug the problem, can you please try changing the stdafx.h file like this: #ifndef _WIN32_IE # define _WIN32_IE 0x0600 #endif and see if that makes a difference? Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) commented on by fastcat - I did some experimenting in the debugger, and the culprit, at least on my XP machine, seems to be the use of sizeof(NOTIFYICONDATA). The value that returns is coming back different from any of the NOTIFYICONDATA_Vx_SIZE values, and so it appears that XP is falling back to a Win95 compatibility mode. I notice in the ShellAPI.h header, the those size macros are defined as the size of the structure WITHOUT the hBalloonIcon member included for some reason! At any rate, using NOTIFYICONDATA_V3_SIZE in place of sizeof(NOTIFYICONDATA) seems to make it work, and after some googling, this is a problem others have run across too. Attached is a patch that works for me. I did some experimenting in the debugger, and the culprit, at least on my XP machine, seems to be the use of sizeof(NOTIFYICONDATA). The value that returns is coming back different from any of the NOTIFYICONDATA_Vx_SIZE values, and so it appears that XP is falling back to a Win95 compatibility mode. I notice in the ShellAPI.h header, the those size macros are defined as the size of the structure WITHOUT the hBalloonIcon member included for some reason! At any rate, using NOTIFYICONDATA_V3_SIZE in place of sizeof(NOTIFYICONDATA) seems to make it work, and after some googling, this is a problem others have run across too. Attached is a patch that works for me. Mar 12, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) commented on by tortoisesvn - Strange, I get 128 chars in the tooltip on my Vista machine. But that shouldn't matter, since according to the MSDN docs the limit is 128 for XP too since it has the shell version 6 - heck, even win2k should have the 128 limit and not 64. Strange, I get 128 chars in the tooltip on my Vista machine. But that shouldn't matter, since according to the MSDN docs the limit is 128 for XP too since it has the shell version 6 - heck, even win2k should have the 128 limit and not 64. Mar 09, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) commented on by fastcat - Blech, seems to be a limitation in the windows api ... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/579665/how-can-i-show-a-systray-tooltip-longer-than-63-chars ... I think the text could be reformatted, however, so that it usually fits in 63 chars. Inet UL 1001 kiB/s DL 1001 kiB/s LAN UL 1001 kiB/s DL 1001 kiB/s Is a worst case scenario, and comes in at 65 chars, so the only part that would be truncated would be fairly minor ("/s" at the end), and in less degenerate cases, everything would fit. Blech, seems to be a limitation in the windows api ... http://stackoverflow.com/questions/579665/how-can-i-show-a-systray-tooltip-longer-than-63-chars ... I think the text could be reformatted, however, so that it usually fits in 63 chars. Inet UL 1001 kiB/s DL 1001 kiB/s LAN UL 1001 kiB/s DL 1001 kiB/s Is a worst case scenario, and comes in at 65 chars, so the only part that would be truncated would be fairly minor ("/s" at the end), and in less degenerate cases, everything would fit. Mar 09, 2009 issue 5 (Tray tooltip truncated at 64 chars) reported by fastcat - What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Run trafficwatch 2. Hover mouse over tray icon 3. Observe that tooltip doesn't show all 4 lines of info What is the expected output? What do you see instead? Expecting to see 4 lines, 2 for internet 2 for LAN. Instead, it generally only shows the first two, and sometimes the first couple characters of the third line. After counting letters, and assuming newlines are 1 character and not 2, it appears to be truncated at 64 characters. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? 2.0.1.58 on WinXP What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Run trafficwatch 2. Hover mouse over tray icon 3. Observe that tooltip doesn't show all 4 lines of info What is the expected output? What do you see instead? Expecting to see 4 lines, 2 for internet 2 for LAN. Instead, it generally only shows the first two, and sometimes the first couple characters of the third line. After counting letters, and assuming newlines are 1 character and not 2, it appears to be truncated at 64 characters. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? 2.0.1.58 on WinXP Mar 04, 2009 trafficwatch-2.0.1.zip (trafficwatch-2.0.1.zip) file uploaded by tortoisesvn - Labels: Featured Type-Archive OpSys-Windows Labels: Featured Type-Archive OpSys-Windows Mar 04, 2009 r59 (Tag the 2.0.1 release) committed by tortoisesvn - Tag the 2.0.1 release Tag the 2.0.1 release Mar 04, 2009 r58 (bump version number to 2.0.1) committed by tortoisesvn - bump version number to 2.0.1 bump version number to 2.0.1 Mar 04, 2009 issue 4 (Windows Snap feature doesn't support more monitors) Status changed by tortoisesvn - should be fixed in r57, but I only have one monitor so this is completely untested. Status: Fixed should be fixed in r57, but I only have one monitor so this is completely untested. Status: Fixed Mar 04, 2009 r57 (Fixed issue #4: Windows Snap feature doesn't support more mo...) committed by tortoisesvn - Fixed issue #4 : Windows Snap feature doesn't support more monitors Note: I don't have a multi monitor setup, so this is completely untested. Fixed issue #4 : Windows Snap feature doesn't support more monitors Note: I don't have a multi monitor setup, so this is completely untested. Mar 04, 2009 issue 4 (Windows Snap feature doesn't support more monitors) changed by tortoisesvn - Status: Started Owner: tortoisesvn Status: Started Owner: tortoisesvn Mar 04, 2009 issue 3 (Values are doubled) Status changed by tortoisesvn - Fixed in r56. Status: Fixed Fixed in r56. Status: Fixed Mar 04, 2009 r56 (Stop a running thread before starting a new one. Fixed issue...) committed by tortoisesvn - Stop a running thread before starting a new one. Fixed issue #3 : Values are doubled Stop a running thread before starting a new one. Fixed issue #3 : Values are doubled Mar 04, 2009 r55 (Don't start a watcher thread if the adapter is not defined y...) committed by tortoisesvn - Don't start a watcher thread if the adapter is not defined yet. Don't start a watcher thread if the adapter is not defined yet. Mar 04, 2009 issue 3 (Values are doubled) Status changed by tortoisesvn - Status: Started Status: Started Mar 04, 2009 r54 (Add missing break.) committed by tortoisesvn - Add missing break. Add missing break. Mar 04, 2009 r53 (Set pack pragma) committed by tortoisesvn - Set pack pragma Set pack pragma Mar 04, 2009 issue 3 (Values are doubled) changed by tortoisesvn - Status: Accepted Owner: tortoisesvn Status: Accepted Owner: tortoisesvn Mar 01, 2009 issue 4 (Windows Snap feature doesn't support more monitors) reported by zarevak - What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Open Traffic Watcher realtime graph window 2. Try to snap it on the second monitor. The second monitor is prositioned to the left from the primary monitor and with lower resolution (aligned on top). 3. What is the expected output? Traffic Watcher's window snaps to each monitor's borders without problems. What do you see instead? Traffic Watcher's window is not snapping to the left and right borders of the second window. Snapping to the bottom snaps to some line bellow the monitors width - ths appears to be the same line as on the primary window, but unvisible due to the lower resolution. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 Please provide any additional information below. Primary monitor resolution: 1920x1200 Secondary monitor resolution: 1280x1024 Monitor placement (ASCII art): \|-----\|\|---------\| \| 2 \|\| 1 \| \|-----\|\| \| \|---------\| What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Open Traffic Watcher realtime graph window 2. Try to snap it on the second monitor. The second monitor is prositioned to the left from the primary monitor and with lower resolution (aligned on top). 3. What is the expected output? Traffic Watcher's window snaps to each monitor's borders without problems. What do you see instead? Traffic Watcher's window is not snapping to the left and right borders of the second window. Snapping to the bottom snaps to some line bellow the monitors width - ths appears to be the same line as on the primary window, but unvisible due to the lower resolution. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 Please provide any additional information below. Primary monitor resolution: 1920x1200 Secondary monitor resolution: 1280x1024 Monitor placement (ASCII art): \|-----\|\|---------\| \| 2 \|\| 1 \| \|-----\|\| \| \|---------\| Mar 01, 2009 issue 3 (Values are doubled) reported by zarevak - I've installed WinPcap 4.0.2 and TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 and started using it, but it displays ?doubled? values for my internet download/upload. I haven't checked the LAN values. What do you see instead? I have 2048/512kbit internet connection. 1) When downloading a file with transfer rate 176KB/s as reported by Internet Explorer 7 Traffic Watcher reports Download speed 370KB/s. 2) My uTorrent 1.8.2 client reports Download about 140KB/sec and Upload about 35KB/sec, but Traffic Watcher reports Download 320KB/sec and Upload 90KB/sec. In both cases values reported from Traffic Watcher are higher then my internet connection can even handle. What is the expected output? I expect values about the same that are reported by Internet Explorer/uTorrent plus some overhead. There is no way my ISP is giving me more connectivity that I'm paying for. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 - Internet Explorer 7 - uTorrent 1.8.2 I've installed WinPcap 4.0.2 and TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 and started using it, but it displays ?doubled? values for my internet download/upload. I haven't checked the LAN values. What do you see instead? I have 2048/512kbit internet connection. 1) When downloading a file with transfer rate 176KB/s as reported by Internet Explorer 7 Traffic Watcher reports Download speed 370KB/s. 2) My uTorrent 1.8.2 client reports Download about 140KB/sec and Upload about 35KB/sec, but Traffic Watcher reports Download 320KB/sec and Upload 90KB/sec. In both cases values reported from Traffic Watcher are higher then my internet connection can even handle. What is the expected output? I expect values about the same that are reported by Internet Explorer/uTorrent plus some overhead. There is no way my ISP is giving me more connectivity that I'm paying for. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 - Internet Explorer 7 - uTorrent 1.8.2 Mar 01, 2009 issue 2 (TW dont show my network card) Status changed by tortoisesvn - Closing the issue then, since restarting solved the problem. Status: Invalid Closing the issue then, since restarting solved the problem. Status: Invalid Feb 28, 2009 issue 2 (TW dont show my network card) commented on by jdeleca - Now it works!!! I didn't restart after installing WinPCap... That was the problem... Now it works!!! I didn't restart after installing WinPCap... That was the problem... Feb 28, 2009 issue 2 (TW dont show my network card) commented on by tortoisesvn - Your network card has to be recognized and supported by WinPCap. If it doesn't show up, then WinPCap either hasn't found your card (did you restart after installing WinPCap?) or it doesn't support your card. Your network card has to be recognized and supported by WinPCap. If it doesn't show up, then WinPCap either hasn't found your card (did you restart after installing WinPCap?) or it doesn't support your card. Feb 27, 2009 issue 2 (TW dont show my network card) reported by jdeleca - What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. I installed winpcap 2. I executed the trafficwatch.exe 3. I have ol PC P4 with Intel mobo D865GBF with this network card: Intel PRO/100 Network Connection 4. In the screenshots you can see that dont show my network card What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. I installed winpcap 2. I executed the trafficwatch.exe 3. I have ol PC P4 with Intel mobo D865GBF with this network card: Intel PRO/100 Network Connection 4. In the screenshots you can see that dont show my network card Feb 27, 2009 issue 1 (Custom Internet Speed) Labels changed by tortoisesvn - Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Labels: Type-Enhancement −Type-Defect Feb 26, 2009 issue 1 (Custom Internet Speed) reported by Philip.Schiffer - It would be good, if you could add a 16Mbit/s Option and the ability to choose a custom speed. It would be good, if you could add a 16Mbit/s Option and the ability to choose a custom speed. Feb 19, 2009 trafficwatch-2.0.0.zip (trafficwatch-2.0.0.zip) file uploaded by tortoisesvn - Labels: Featured Type-Archive OpSys-Windows Labels: Featured Type-Archive OpSys-Windows Feb 19, 2009 r52 (Tag the first non-CodeProject release.) committed by tortoisesvn - Tag the first non-CodeProject release. Tag the first non-CodeProject release. Feb 19, 2009 r51 (Add screenshots.) committed by tortoisesvn - Add screenshots. Add screenshots.

issue 3 (Values are doubled) reported by zarevak - I've installed WinPcap 4.0.2 and TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 and started using it, but it displays ?doubled? values for my internet download/upload. I haven't checked the LAN values. What do you see instead? I have 2048/512kbit internet connection. 1) When downloading a file with transfer rate 176KB/s as reported by Internet Explorer 7 Traffic Watcher reports Download speed 370KB/s. 2) My uTorrent 1.8.2 client reports Download about 140KB/sec and Upload about 35KB/sec, but Traffic Watcher reports Download 320KB/sec and Upload 90KB/sec. In both cases values reported from Traffic Watcher are higher then my internet connection can even handle. What is the expected output? I expect values about the same that are reported by Internet Explorer/uTorrent plus some overhead. There is no way my ISP is giving me more connectivity that I'm paying for. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 - Internet Explorer 7 - uTorrent 1.8.2

I've installed WinPcap 4.0.2 and TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 and started using it, but it displays ?doubled? values for my internet download/upload. I haven't checked the LAN values. What do you see instead? I have 2048/512kbit internet connection. 1) When downloading a file with transfer rate 176KB/s as reported by Internet Explorer 7 Traffic Watcher reports Download speed 370KB/s. 2) My uTorrent 1.8.2 client reports Download about 140KB/sec and Upload about 35KB/sec, but Traffic Watcher reports Download 320KB/sec and Upload 90KB/sec. In both cases values reported from Traffic Watcher are higher then my internet connection can even handle. What is the expected output? I expect values about the same that are reported by Internet Explorer/uTorrent plus some overhead. There is no way my ISP is giving me more connectivity that I'm paying for. What version of the product are you using? On what operating system? - WinPcap 4.0.2 - TrafficWatcher 2.0.0.51 - Windows XP SP3 - Internet Explorer 7 - uTorrent 1.8.2

Earlier this year