On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 01:06:23PM -0600, Seth Graham wrote: > Ben Hartshorne wrote: > > > >It seems to me that using the name to determine cluster membership would > >simplify things for the people configuring ganglia. > > It would, but when you have 3000+ machines all chattering on the same > port that's a lot of data for a machine to deal with. Not only do the > aggregating machines have to hold it all in memory, but the gmetad host > has to dump all that info into the rrds.
Isn't the machine going to have to handle exactly the same amount of data, regardless of whether its on one port or two? I would imagine that by the time your network got to 3000+ hosts, things would be segregated in their own right, independent of ganglia. Such segregation would make it easy (and more logical) to use head nodes as aggregators and then pass data up the tree to your main web interface. Multicast networks can be broken up by subnet or VLAN, and the unicast nodes can use ganglia's ability to only pass on summary info, etc. Of course, I have not had the privilege of working with a cluster of that size. I've only got just over 100 hosts, so please forgive anything that will become obvious as soon as I actually have to deal with the problem... ;) -ben -- Ben Hartshorne email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ben.hartshorne.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
