gmond was at

Bernard Li wrote:
Hey Ron:

Which version did you upgrade from?

gmond 2.5.1

BUT,  ... making it more interesting ....

A co-worker installed a new Ganglia setup (server/clients) in England.

He's seeing the same thing... on different versions of server backend/frontend 
httpd software.

Site  - front  -  back
Denver  2.5.1  -  2.5.5
Gatwick 2.5.4  -  2.5.6

all with gmond 2.5.6-1 are seeing this "jittery" issue...

Ok, I'll upgrade the Denver center to latest - see if that doesn't help.

I kept my Ganglia web server at:  gmetad:

I have upgraded from a previous version without any problems...
2.5.4...?

Cheers,

Bernard

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Reeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:37
To: Bernard Li
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Ganglia-general] Jittery Displays - number of nodes changing erratically.

Yes,

I've been running Ganglia - for well over a year... no problems, after initial install.
I've upgraded several times... again no biggie....



Bernard Li wrote:

Hi Ron:

Did you recently upgrade from an older version of Ganglia? This is really an odd behaviour...

Cheers,

Bernard



-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On

Behalf Of Ron
Reeder
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Ganglia-general] Jittery Displays - number of

nodes changing
erratically.

Sirs,

With new gmond 2.5.6-1 - We are getting 'jittery' displays

- where the
number of nodes and number of CPU's is varying wildly on

the 'Overview
of <Cluster>'  page.

The summed LOAD and MEM charts are particularly bad .

Yes, when ever I go to the page is always shows:  82 hosts
(164 CPUs) up and running none down.

I do have the value:
host_dmax 3600

in gmond.conf

'Cause it seems that Ganglia  _NEVER_ thinks hosts die....

(Maybe a seperate problem)

How could the node/CPU lines graph as horrible zig-zags (not horizontal-lines as they should) Yet, the host count is always the same?

Chart is attached gif file.







Reply via email to