-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jeff;
You may want to look into using the master/slave functionality to distribute the load rather than making more probes on a single host. Also, disks aren't faster just by virtue of being on a SAN. Similarly configured volumes (same number of disks, same RAID level, same amount of controller cache) are almost invariably faster by using DAS, as you don't have the added latency of the FC (or even worse, iSCSI) packet switching network (plus SAN typically has shared bus and cache). Is there a real, technical reason to use exactly 30 pings? For example, do you need that level of granularity for % loss? Could you get by with 15 or 20? You'd still get host up/down notifications, and improved performance, at a cost of less granularity for loss % -- which often (though not always) isn't an important metric when monitoring branches (2 packets lost out of 30 = 5.7%, 2 packets out of 20 = 10% -- does that difference actually matter in your case? Could it be compensated for by slightly increasing loss % thresholds for alerts?) Just my thoughts... YMMV, of course. :) - - Peter Jeff Williams wrote: | Hey folks, | | Our network group is looking to get some more performance from | smokeping. I'm looking for some tips on how to optimize performance and | I welcome any suggestions. - -- Peter Kristolaitis DBA / Code Monkey / General Geek OpenPGP/GPG Key available from pgp.mit.edu Key Fingerprint: 695D 7616 9903 6002 5756 ~ D234 6E96 34B2 F974 14FE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIUWfybpY0svl0FP4RAu8iAJwPoj7cdTVcAlo3oZnUXuBRYO4RaACgtUAh poGFovLgz8Sq4HliLceQSsQ= =J76u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ smokeping-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/smokeping-users
