I have not installed nor administered either service. I have hit cricket web pages to profile some behaviors - but the network admin team had put that in place. I think Robert's right - cricket will get you slightly closer to the raw firehose, but it may be that switches can report all of the meta-data you care about for traffic analysis via SNMP, making cacti a good (better?) way to go. Thanks to the question below I'm wanting to carve some time out and play with both and compare. :) -Rob On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Robert Radtke <robert at hutman.net> wrote: > I didn't look that closely - but it appears that cricket does packet > capture and creates graphs based on that. Cacti collects data from via SNMP > and other sources but doesn't really inspect packets on your network. > > > >> >> Is there anything Cricket can do that Cacti can't? It looks like it is >> Cacti minus a lot of functionality and polish >> >> My opinion was reached after about 2 minutes of reading the provided >> cricket website. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20111117/ccbd059c/attachment.html>