[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] Is there a limit on the number of hosts that can polled?
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] Is there a limit on the number of hosts that can polled?
- From: Shawn Heisey <elyograg (at) elyograg.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:49:53 -0700
- References: <B418CBB57E2E3941BAB88ECFE860CE600C1CCA89 (at) PRVPVSMAIL08.corp.twcable.com> <49727DE2.000003.03484 (at) HOME2>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
I would agree with this, the disk subsystem is probably unable to keep
up with the I/O load. Use "iostat 30" or "vmstat 30" to determine
iowait percentage, which is probably very high. To fix it, get rid of
any raid5/6 (even if handled by a dedicated controller) or LVM, and
possibly use faster disks. The best balance between performance and
data redundancy is raid10, but obviously it costs more because there are
more disks. For write-intensive tasks like this, even JBOD is a better
performance option than raid5. Because I never use it, I don't really
know why LVM causes problems, but I know from others' experience that it
does.
The problem with raid5 and raid6 is that there's a write penalty due to
the need to calculate and write parity data. A good controller with
memory for write caching can mitigate this in many typical
circumstances, but only if the entire transaction can fit in the cache
memory and can be flushed to disk before another data flood comes in.
In this case, it takes about 2700 hosts to generate more data than the
system can write before more arrives.
Brian Catlin wrote:
As nobody took a shot at this, While you are ok on memory and CPU -
have you looked at your other resources? With that many hosts
reporting back to a master - I would suspect I/O flooding off your
interface...
Just a thought ....