Community discussions

MikroTik App
 
adonk
just joined
Topic Author
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:50 pm

RB921GS-5HPacD wireless registration-table

Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:44 pm

Hello,
We installed some new mANTBox 15s devices. working nicely but not correct when reading the wireless clients registration table.
Are there more people experiencing this behaviour? And maybe found a solution?

I have upgraded to different versions of RouterOS but never solved my problem.
this is resulting in wrong graphs in my monitoring system.
[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /system resource> print 
                   uptime: 7w5d7h4m47s
                  version: 6.35 (stable)
               build-time: Apr/14/2016 12:55:07
              free-memory: 97.0MiB
             total-memory: 128.0MiB
                      cpu: MIPS 74Kc V5.0
                cpu-count: 1
            cpu-frequency: 720MHz
                 cpu-load: 7%
           free-hdd-space: 111.2MiB
          total-hdd-space: 128.0MiB
  write-sect-since-reboot: 83920
         write-sect-total: 91406
               bad-blocks: 0%
        architecture-name: mipsbe
               board-name: RB921GS-5HPacD
                 platform: MikroTik


[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /interface wireless registration-table> print count-only                                
601
[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /interface wireless registration-table> print count-only where last-activity < "3600"      
55
[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /interface wireless registration-table> print count-only where last-activity < "86400"    
124
[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /interface wireless registration-table> print count-only where last-activity < "864000"
275
[adonk@Zuidduinen-5Ghz-1] /interface wireless registration-table> print count-only where last-activity < "8640000"
601
cheers
Arco
 
User avatar
docmarius
Forum Guru
Forum Guru
Posts: 1222
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Contact:

Re: RB921GS-5HPacD wireless registration-table

Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:06 pm

Last activity has a format like 00:00:00.120...
Can that comparison be done like that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: realmark and 30 guests