On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for the documentation thread, I had not read that doc, but
> obviosuly all the answers are there. so from what I am seeing and now
> understanding from the imstats, is that so far I have not seen any
> discarded messages (which is a good thing) , and what I am curious about is
> that I constantly get the main q size up to the maximum, does that mean
> that the server cannot process those messages as quickly as its receiving
> them?
>
>
I had a chance for a quick look at the /dev/null stats ... and the numbers
somehow do not sum up.

Can you please re-run this test without the deltas (so use the default
cumulative stats mode). Maybe there is a bug in delta mode, or maybe memory
access races wreck it that much (one reason I did originally not intend to
support deltas) - or maybe I am something misreading...

Rainer

>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rainer Gerhards
>
> Sent: 10/10/13 11:33 AM
>
> To: Robert
>
> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Tr : Re: perfomance tweaking (fwd)
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I have a question
>>
>> I am going through the the stats, and there are some instances where the
>> action processed goes to 500,00 + does that mean that it writes out that
>> many messages in that second?
>
>
> yup, minus a small margin for i/o in progress plus the extra vagueness you
> enabled by setting it to deltas. But I'd say +/-5% that's the number that
> goes to that file during the period.
>
>
>
>> also what are the resource-usage numbers?
>>
>
>
> actually, it would save all of us time if you would read the doc links I
> continously post ;)
>
> once again:
>
> http://www.rsyslog.com/rsyslog-statistic-counter/
>
> I really have a reason point you to them ;-)
>
> Rainer
>
>>
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:47 2013: action 1: processed=1400000 failed=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:47 2013: imudp(*:514): submitted=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:47 2013: imudp(*:514): submitted=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:47 2013: resource-usage: utime=127966546 stime=173249662
>> maxrss=20414472 minflt=5116893 majflt=0 inblock=0 oublock=21631064
>> nvcsw=4687486 nivcsw=59354
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:47 2013: main Q: size=1985593 enqueued=0 full=0
>> discarded.full=0 discarded.nf=0 maxqsize=20000000
>>
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: imuxsock: submitted=0 ratelimit.discarded=0
>> ratelimit.numratelimiters=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: action 1: processed=574000 failed=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: imudp(*:514): submitted=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: imudp(*:514): submitted=0
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: resource-usage: utime=131556000 stime=174801426
>> maxrss=20414472 minflt=5116893 majflt=0 inblock=0 oublock=22391480
>> nvcsw=4814080 nivcsw=59376
>> Thu Oct 10 10:43:48 2013: main Q: size=1410593 enqueued=0 full=0
>> discarded.full=0 discarded.nf=0 maxqsize=20000000
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Robert
>>
>> Sent: 10/10/13 09:46 AM
>>
>> To: Rainer Gerhards
>>
>> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Tr : Re: perfomance tweaking (fwd)
>>
>>
>> These are the results with 1000 for both timeREquery and batchsize, writing 
>> out to /dev/null
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rainer Gerhards
>> Sent: 10/10/13 08:48 AM
>> To: Robert
>> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Tr : Re: perfomance tweaking (fwd)
>>
>> umm.. again the ML thread is broken :-(
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Robert < [email protected] > wrote:From the 
>> documentation does that mean that I should lessen my timeRequery and 
>> batchSize? to something lower ?
>>
>> A relatively large batch size is a good thing. I would be conservative with 
>> timeRequery in a large batch environment. As I wrote in the doc, I'd 
>> recommend not to go higer than 10.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of 
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE 
THAT.

Reply via email to