Not specifially with Salive, but it's not used widely here due to its
impact on server performance.
//steve
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 15 maj 2006 12:20
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] SA Speed (was SA Future Direction)
I've found the problem! We run VNC on the SA server to allow us to access the console. I've just stopped the VNC server service, and lo and behold SA started racing through checks faster than a fast thing. It's still taking longer than I'd like, but it's a big improvement.
Has anyone else found that problem with VNC?
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 21:05
|
|
I was running mine on a desktop with a single P4-3Ghz and 512mb of RAM.
Hardware shouldn't be a problem for you.
-Kevin
Servers Alive Discussion List wrote:
> ïûÿ
>
> I guess you mean twin procs (346 is only dual) - it's that pesky Xeon
> thing appearing as two. But that's still twice as many as I have -
> maybe that's it. I'll see if I can steal a twin proc server from
> somewhere...
>
>
> 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 20:30
> * 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
>
>
> Check Types Qty % of Checks
> Ping Checks 167 25.77%
> Performance Checks 258 39.81%
> Diskspace Checks 110 16.98%
> Service Checks 48 7.41%
> Process Checks 55 8.49%
> Web Server Checks 2 0.31%
> SQL*Server Login 2 0.31%
> DNS Checks 5 0.77%
> Lotus Notes DB Checks 1 0.15%
>
> Total Checks 648
> SA Cycle Time (sec) 240
> Checks Per Sec. 2.7
> Most checks take 0.25 sec.
> Perfmon checks take about 0.5 sec.
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\DBU Consulting\Servers
> Alive\IntervalBetweenChecks = 1
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\DBU Consulting\Servers
> Alive\StartUp\PerItemCycle = 50
> Windows 2003 Server
> IBM 346 Server
> Quad Processors 3GHz
> 2 Gig Memory
> Broadcom NetXtreme Gigabit Ethernet
> Jim F
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 1:50 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
> *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA
> Future Direction
>
> Hmmm... So what's the key difference? There must be a fundamental
> difference in config somewhere...
> _________________________________
> 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 18:25
> * To: *Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
> * Subject: *[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
>
>
> No I am not running multithreaded.
> Jim F.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 12, 2006 1:15 PM
> *To:* Servers Alive Discussion List
> *Subject:* [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
> Please respond to
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> To
> Servers Alive Discussion List <[email protected]>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢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] <mailto:[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]
> 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]
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]
