On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > Then do the same thing, but add > resetCounters="on" > > to the impstats module > > I want to make sure that the two runs show the same totals, if they do, > then we will want to do future runs with reset counters on. > > A slight variation should be no problem, as long as it is very slight. Note that resetting the counters is racy by design (except if we use locking), so some updates will probably be lost. As long as it is not running really wild, that will not change the overall idea you get from the logs. Some counter upates are racy by themselfes (like the max values), this is why the doc cautions a bit.
Doing them non-racy would considerably slow down rsyslog threading and introduce major contention. Note that atomic updates are done whereever possible, so most counters are quite accurate. Just FYI. Rainer > David Lang > > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, David Lang wrote: > > Robert, please try the following configuration >> >> module(load="imuxsock") # needs to be done just once Roberto 8-9-13 >> module(load="imklog") >> module(load="impstats" >> interval="10" >> log.syslog="off" >> log.file="/var/log/pstats") >> >> # Provides UDP syslog reception >> module(load="imudp" >> batchSize="1000" >> TimeRequery="10" >> SchedulingPolicy="fifo" >> SchedulingPriority="10") >> input(type="imudp" port="514" ) >> >> #### GLOBAL DIRECTIVES #### >> >> # Use imprecise-old-style timestamp format >> $ActionFileDefaultTemplate RSYSLOG_TraditionalFileFormat >> >> $MainMsgQueueType FixedArray >> $MainMsgQueueSize 20000000 >> $MainMsgQueueWorkerThreads 1 >> $MainMsgQueueDequeueBatchSize 1000 >> $InputUDPMaxSessions 40000000 >> >> #### RULES #### >> >> action (type="omfile" >> File="/dev/null) >> >> >> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote: >> >> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 18:45:17 +0200 >>> From: Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> >>> To: Robert <[email protected]> >>> Cc: David Lang <[email protected]>, rsyslog-users <[email protected] >>> >, >>> rmkml <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Tr : Re: perfomance tweaking (fwd) >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Attached are the results to /dev/null, 10 second interval for imstats, >>>> with zip and async removed. >>>> >>> >>> >>> OK ... I finally give up, it's a waste of time. I thought that was just >>> the >>> plain config writing to /dev/null w/o any bells and whistles. This, >>> together with the messy thread makes me strongly belive we'll go nowhere >>> that permits us to draw any conclusions. Should you come up with a stable >>> situation that tell where a bottleneck may be, I am happy to join this >>> thread again, but until then I can't spent the time. I also doubt we'll >>> ever arrive there.. >>> >>> Rainer >>> >>> >>> top was better the worker threads stayed around ~35% each, imudp thread >>>> was high at ~95%. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: David Lang >>>> >>>> Sent: 10/10/13 12:14 PM >>>> >>>> To: Robert >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Tr : Re: perfomance tweaking (fwd) >>>> >>>> >>>> by the way, the following command line may help you see what's happeing >>>> (with >>>> relative stats) >>>> >>>> grep imudp pstats |grep -v "=0" >>>> >>>> grep imudp pstats |grep -v "=0" >>>> >>>> Also, when we are writing out to /dev/null, let's make a run with >>>> ziplevel and >>>> asyncwrite removed (since they only benefit us by saving I/O and moving >>>> it to a >>>> different thread) >>>> >>>> David Lang >>>> >>>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Robert wrote: >>>> >>>> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:46:38 -0400 >>>>> From: Robert <[email protected]> >>>>> To: Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: David Lang <[email protected]>, rsyslog-users < >>>>> [email protected]>, >>>>> rmkml <[email protected]> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Rainer >>>>> >>>>> Robert. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert. >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> rsyslog mailing list >> http://lists.adiscon.net/**mailman/listinfo/rsyslog<http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog> >> http://www.rsyslog.com/**professional-services/<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. >> >> _______________________________________________ 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.
