- observium - lists.observium.org

Better performance on older hardware
by Louis Bailleul 14 Aug '15

14 Aug '15

Hi, I am in the process of qualifying some hardware to run Observium (planning to deploy it in about 25 locations). So I was trying to evaluate the hardware we currently have which consist of Dell R610 and IBM X3550. So we can gauge what we need. The R610 has : - 2x Intel X5660 (6 cores 2.8Ghz + hyperthreading) == total of 12 physical cores and 24 logical - 96Gb of DDR3 1333Mhz - 6x300GB 10K SAS configured as one raid1 of 2 disks for mysql and OS and a raid5 of 4 disks for rrds. - 1Gb network interface The X3550 has : - 2x Intel L5420 (4 cores 2.5Ghz) == total of 8 physical cores - 32Gb of DDR2 266Mhz - 2x200Gb 7.5K SATA configured as one for mysql and OS and one for rrds - 1 Gb network interface So reading this, it seems easy to guess which one should be faster. I am currently testing using : Observium CE 0.15.6.6430 OS Linux 2.6.32-358.14.1.el6.x86_64 [amd64] (CentOS 6.2) Apache 2.2.15 (CentOS) PHP 5.6.11 Python 2.6.6 MySQL 5.6.26-log SNMP NET-SNMP 5.5 RRDtool 1.4.9 From my testing, the poller perform a quite better on the R610 than on the X3550 : Polling the same 310 linux boxes (The slowest devices taking around 35 seconds) this gives an average of : - 8 threads : R610 : 169 seconds X3550 : 213 seconds - 12 threads : R610 : 69 seconds X3550 : 156 seconds - 24 threads R610 : 41 seconds X3550 : 107 seconds - 36 threads R610 : 41 seconds X3550 : 160 seconds - 64 threads R610 : 37 seconds X3550 : 225 seconds - 96 Threads R610 : 40 seconds X3550 : Still running Ok we clearly have a winner here. Bottom line for the poller, you can come close to the time taken by your slowest devices if you add more threads. But it seems that you need quite a few cores available to be able to increase the number of threads without decreasing the efficiency. This was kind of expected. Where the thing becomes weird it's on the web interface and especially the graph rendering : On average starting with a clear cache, the same Linux device page render (graphs included) consistently in about 1 second on the X3550 and in about 4 seconds on the R610 (screenshot attached). Where it became even worse : if you ask the X3550 to connect to the mysql database of the R610 and export the rrds of the R610 over NFS ... the X3550 still render the page faster (still around 1 second). Any guess on what is going on here ? It doesn't seem right that a machine that is definitely faster accessing mysql and updating rrds would be 4 times slower when rendering graphs. Best regards, Louis

5 13

backup data
by Farshid Abediny 14 Aug '15

14 Aug '15

Hi, how can we backup observium data that if our VMs lost we can recover data ? only backup of database rrd/ logs/ folder is enough? thanks,

3 7

Re: [Observium] can't ping error from inside Observium
by Tom Laermans 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Disagree! :) On Aug 13, 2015 5:45 PM, Adam Armstrong <adama(a)memetic.org> wrote: > > Oh yes. I keep forgetting people can add from the web interface. > > I vote to remove adding from the web interface. Again. > > adam. >> >> On 13/08/2015 16:36:40, Tom Laermans <tom.laermans(a)powersource.cx> wrote: >> >> Most likely selinux is not letting apache exec fping. >> >> Tom >> >> On Aug 13, 2015 3:24 PM, Michael Ponto wrote: >> > >> > Good morning all >> > I have a new server setup with Centos 7 and Observium >> > Everything looks good except I can't add any devices. >> > I get an error that says it can't ping the device. >> > >> > I can ping when logged in from the terminal by IP and by Name. >> > FPing also works from the console. >> > IP tables and Firewall have been turned off for trouble shooting. >> > I can add users etc. >> > This is a replacement box so the devices are all configured correctly. >> > >> > Total loss here. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > observium mailing list >> > observium(a)observium.org >> > http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium >> _______________________________________________ >> observium mailing list >> observium(a)observium.org >> http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium

4 3

Re: [Observium] can't ping error from inside Observium
by Tom Laermans 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

1 0

Re: [Observium] can't ping error from inside Observium
by ron＠rjr-services.com 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

As a CLI person, I agree with Adam. :-) Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID Tom Laermans <tom.laermans(a)powersource.cx> wrote: -- This message has been scanned by E.F.A. Project and is believed to be clean.

2 1

Re: [Observium] Alert checking on port state change
by Tom Laermans 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Protip: the below statement is not true, there's a toggle for number of seconds to renotify. But indeed, no per-checker config, that one is true ;) Tom On Aug 13, 2015 7:03 AM, Adam Armstrong <adama(a)memetic.org> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > At the moment Observium is hardcoded to re-notify alerts after 24 hours. > > I think that your use case would be helped by being able to turn this off on a per-checker basis. > > I'll add it to the list :) > > Adam. > > Sent with AquaMail for Android > http://www.aqua-mail.com > > On 12 August 2015 9:02:30 pm Tim Vaughan <tim(a)timvaughan.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi all, I'm starting to get my head around Observium alerts. >> >> I want to be alerted if a switch port that was previously down comes up, and vice versa. I don't want to get repeatedly alerted when a port is down (or up), only when it changes state. At the moment I'm using tests "ifAdminStatus equals up" and "ifOperStatus notequals up" for one alert, but I appear to be getting notifications each time the poller runs. Any suggestions on how I can get what I want? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tim >> _______________________________________________ >> observium mailing list >> observium(a)observium.org >> http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium >>

1 0

Re: [Observium] can't ping error from inside Observium
by Tom Laermans 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Most likely selinux is not letting apache exec fping. Tom On Aug 13, 2015 3:24 PM, Michael Ponto <MPonto(a)team-psc.com> wrote: > > Good morning all > I have a new server setup with Centos 7 and Observium > Everything looks good except I can't add any devices. > I get an error that says it can't ping the device. > > I can ping when logged in from the terminal by IP and by Name. > FPing also works from the console. > IP tables and Firewall have been turned off for trouble shooting. > I can add users etc. > This is a replacement box so the devices are all configured correctly. > > Total loss here. > > _______________________________________________ > observium mailing list > observium(a)observium.org > http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium

2 1

Alert checking on port state change
by Tim Vaughan 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Hi all, I'm starting to get my head around Observium alerts. I want to be alerted if a switch port that was previously down comes up, and vice versa. I don't want to get repeatedly alerted when a port is down (or up), only when it changes state. At the moment I'm using tests "ifAdminStatus equals up" and "ifOperStatus notequals up" for one alert, but I appear to be getting notifications each time the poller runs. Any suggestions on how I can get what I want? Cheers, Tim

2 2

can't ping error from inside Observium
by Michael Ponto 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

Good morning all I have a new server setup with Centos 7 and Observium Everything looks good except I can't add any devices. I get an error that says it can't ping the device. I can ping when logged in from the terminal by IP and by Name. FPing also works from the console. IP tables and Firewall have been turned off for trouble shooting. I can add users etc. This is a replacement box so the devices are all configured correctly. Total loss here.

2 1

Re: [Observium] svn Checksum mismatch error
by Tom Laermans 13 Aug '15

13 Aug '15

I'll give you that, though i'm pretty sure they also switched to snmp-mibs-downloader :) On Aug 13, 2015 7:51 AM, Adam Armstrong <adama(a)memetic.org> wrote: > > Ubuntu doesn't seem to have quite so much OS-zealotry-fuelled hatred for its users as Debian, though! ;) > > adam. >> >> On 13/08/2015 06:49:46, Tom Laermans <tom.laermans(a)powersource.cx> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 13, 2015 7:01 AM, Adam Armstrong wrote: >> > >> > Also, I'd recommend Ubuntu, it has fewer strange quirks than Debian. :) >> >> I highly recommend Debian over Ubuntu for exactly that reason :) >> _______________________________________________ >> observium mailing list >> observium(a)observium.org >> http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium

2 1