[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines & graphs
- To: <hobbit (at) hswn.dk>
- Subject: RE: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines & graphs
- From: "Hubbard, Greg L" <greg.hubbard (at) eds.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:27:00 -0500
- References: <29f517690712050853u4d47ef3cr25fc15f538cdf85c (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690712071213k1c0214a2of2eb6ff400815004 (at) mail.gmail.com> <58EF0861D3A1A04182720B3A5231C7C201EA5138 (at) usplm205.amer.corp.eds.com> <29f517690712110642r7aa2c073wb23409bc1bb71bad (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690712120714y2a40280cib186239487583d32 (at) mail.gmail.com> <6C2B32F89382AF42875672B6F5BEB68204F54885 (at) MERCMBX07.na.sas.com> <961092e10712120728o906c216hec40c55ae9f0ece4 (at) mail.gmail.com> <6C2B32F89382AF42875672B6F5BEB68204F548B6 (at) MERCMBX07.na.sas.com> <29f517690712121045l3da75cc3ib5daf8ef86a7ab6c (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690712190659g5674db41xc1dc6d135080b74b (at) mail.gmail.com> <29f517690804071114q54a2b483lfe873df7b1e6203c (at) mail.gmail.com>
- Thread-index: AciY3CXF3exkEzXKSDe7tlO/BU0AhwAAKOqQ
- Thread-topic: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines & graphs
If you look through the source, the RRD support modules are easy to
spot. If you are using custom graphs, then you need to review the ncv
method, or the "roll your own" method.
But, since "garbage in -> garbage out" you might be on the right path.
GLH
________________________________
From: Gary Baluha [mailto:gumby3203 (at) gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 1:15 PM
To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
Subject: Re: [hobbit] strange graph behavior - random machines &
graphs
I thought I'd revisit this issue again. A new thought has
occurred to me... Where does Hobbit generate the RRD files? I wonder
what parameters Hobbit is using to pass to rrdtool, and if something
there might be acting funny with some of the data I'm providing to that
Hobbit module.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM, Gary Baluha
<gumby3203 (at) gmail.com> wrote:
It's interesting that it seems the CPU Load and Users
and Processes graphs are the graphs that are most likely to have this
strange corruption. I have also seen it on a few Disk graphs, but not
nearly as many as the other two graphs. Interestingly, the CPU
Utilization, Network I/O, and TCP Connection Times graphs have _never_
had this corruption. I'd also like to say the Memory Utilization graph
hasn't had this issue either, though I can't recall with complete
certainty that that is the case.
I wonder what the main difference between the 3 graphs
that do have the issue is, and the 3 (possibly 4) graphs that have never
exhibited this issue. There must be some physical difference, as I
can't imagine it is all due purely to luck...