Jim,
Can you confirm if you're running the multithread beta?
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
Sent via Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/05/2006 18:05
To: Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
It looks like I may have exaggerated slightly, we are doing
648 checks in exactly 4 minutes which is about three checks per second. We
do have a lot of perfmon checks which are comparatively
slow.
It easily clips through ping checks and process
checks at 4 per second.
Jim
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:45 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
That makes sense, and I could live with that if LAN checks were fast. But I
only get maybe 1 check per second on a local LAN ping with a 1 ms round
trip...
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European
Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
Sent
via Blackberry
----- Original Message -----
From: Servers Alive
Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12/05/2006
17:35
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
<[email protected]>
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list]
Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction

From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 May 2006 17:30
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
IBM Blade server, Xeon 2.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM, running Win2K server. Checks are probably 60% PING, 30% SNMP, 10% other stuff (Win services, disk space etc). Maybe 50% on the local LAN, and 50% across a (reasonably fast) WAN.
We implemented all the tuning bits in the registry long time ago, although that never made a big difference. This is the first time I've seen a speed comparison - I'm staggered. Sounds like Michael is doing similar speeds to you, so evidence so far is pointing to the problem being here. If I could get checks going that fast it would revolutionise the process.
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
That seems REALLY slow. I was running over 1000 checks with many RRDs,
HTML generation, etc and I was never over 15 minutes. With some tuning
and pruning I cut that in half with recent betas.
What kind of hardware?
-Kevin
Servers Alive Discussion List wrote:
>
> Four checks per second??? How do you manage that? What sort of checks
> are they? I'd be pleased with 1 check per second! (Currently I'm
> running through about 360 checks in 15 mins - albeit including RRD
> generation which takes up a minute or three, and also recognising that
> checks over the WAN will take a bit longer).
>
> Ian
> _________________________________
> Ian K Gray
> OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
> Tel: +44 1236 502661
> Mob: +44 7881 518854
>
>
> *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>*
>
> 12/05/2006 15:55
> Please respond to
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> To
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [SA-list] SA Future Direction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Since everyone is weighing in, I have two add my two cents worth.
>
> Multi-threading
> It would be nice if SA ran a little faster, but be careful what you
> ask for. We are currently running four checks per second. If that
> number is significantly increased, I can foresee sizing problems with
> my database where I log the output, network bandwidth issues and
> server performance issues.
>
> XML
> I donâââ‰â¢t care. Always felt it was overrated.
>
> Configuration Database
> I think it is an excellent idea. It would be a good first step to
> prepare for a remote administration tool. which I believe is extremely
> important.
>
> Output Database
> This is also an excellent idea. Users could write their own reports,
> generate their own html, and if desired can produce their own XML.
>
> Jim Ferrell
> EDS - Allison Transmission
> 4700 W 10th St
> Mail Code 462-470-H04
> Indianapolis, IN 46222
>
> ( phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252)
> + _mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cell phone: 317-716-4541
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
This message has been scanned by Node N01 incoming
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
Ian
We have fast WANS as well and still find the checks
significantly slower than local, think its down to latency rather than
bandwidth; especially disk size checks etc
Dave
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 May 2006 17:30
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
IBM Blade server, Xeon 2.8Ghz, 2Gb RAM, running Win2K server. Checks are probably 60% PING, 30% SNMP, 10% other stuff (Win services, disk space etc). Maybe 50% on the local LAN, and 50% across a (reasonably fast) WAN.
We implemented all the tuning bits in the registry long time ago, although that never made a big difference. This is the first time I've seen a speed comparison - I'm staggered. Sounds like Michael is doing similar speeds to you, so evidence so far is pointing to the problem being here. If I could get checks going that fast it would revolutionise the process.
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
| Servers Alive Discussion
List <[email protected]>
12/05/2006 16:50
|
|
That seems REALLY slow. I was running over 1000 checks with many RRDs,
HTML generation, etc and I was never over 15 minutes. With some tuning
and pruning I cut that in half with recent betas.
What kind of hardware?
-Kevin
Servers Alive Discussion List wrote:
>
> Four checks per second??? How do you manage that? What sort of checks
> are they? I'd be pleased with 1 check per second! (Currently I'm
> running through about 360 checks in 15 mins - albeit including RRD
> generation which takes up a minute or three, and also recognising that
> checks over the WAN will take a bit longer).
>
> Ian
> _________________________________
> Ian K Gray
> OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
> Tel: +44 1236 502661
> Mob: +44 7881 518854
>
>
> *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>*
>
> 12/05/2006 15:55
> Please respond to
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> To
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [SA-list] SA Future Direction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Since everyone is weighing in, I have two add my two cents worth.
>
> Multi-threading
> It would be nice if SA ran a little faster, but be careful what you
> ask for. We are currently running four checks per second. If that
> number is significantly increased, I can foresee sizing problems with
> my database where I log the output, network bandwidth issues and
> server performance issues.
>
> XML
> I donâââ‰â¢t care. Always felt it was overrated.
>
> Configuration Database
> I think it is an excellent idea. It would be a good first step to
> prepare for a remote administration tool. which I believe is extremely
> important.
>
> Output Database
> This is also an excellent idea. Users could write their own reports,
> generate their own html, and if desired can produce their own XML.
>
> Jim Ferrell
> EDS - Allison Transmission
> 4700 W 10th St
> Mail Code 462-470-H04
> Indianapolis, IN 46222
>
> ( phone: +01-317-242-0034 (8-252)
> + _mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cell phone: 317-716-4541
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
>
> To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to
> [email protected]
>
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
This message has been scanned by Node N01 incoming
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
Disclaimer
This communication is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individuals to whom it is addressed.
Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Allied Bakeries - a division of ABF Grain Products Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this communication in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of the contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify Allied Bakeries Service Desk on Freephone 0800 374684 or reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This communication is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individuals to whom it is addressed.
Any views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Allied Bakeries - a division of ABF Grain Products Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this communication in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of the contents is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify Allied Bakeries Service Desk on Freephone 0800 374684 or reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message has been scanned by Node N02 Outgoing
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
