> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:19:01AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > I've been in a similar situation myself, doing 20-30 sec updates on 50k+ > > RRD files. > > [...] > > > The big daddy of performance suck is then going to be, opening, closing, > > and seeking the right spot in the files every time. > > Have you considered saving up updates and do them (say) 10 at a time? > > Sure, this is going to be a problem for that one user that happens > to want to see the data of the past few minutes. But it would save > you much disk access, wouldn't it? >
Alex, Would the system benefit from either having multiple server processes accepting RRD update commands or a multi-threaded server process, or are all the updates disk bound (aka the disk is too busy)? I have found that the RRD update process not to be too disk intensive, at least from the aggregate I/O perspective. However, disk seeks may be keeping the heads pretty busy. This I have not evaluated. Regards, Larry Adams The Cacti Group -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi
