 |
 |
Dear Andy, Am 17.06.19 um 22:50 schrieb Andrew Hanushevsky: > Hello Adrian & Oliver, > >> just to chime in - I have fallen into the very same trap :-(. >> But that easily explains why I did not notice any load balancing effects. > Yes, the issue here is that the "sched" directive is used by the redirector and the "perf" directive is used by the data server. That means, depending on how you structured your config file, catching the discrepancy is not assured. That said, yes, the documentation should make it clear that cms.perf needs to be specified on the data server side. if you want to load balance. ah, I understand. > >> While I fully agree a working default would be good, > The first issue is to where to put the script so that it could be uniformly invoked. Since there was no good place, we decided to not to make a default (that's explicitly stated in the documentation). > >> the script shipped with XRootD right now is mostly useless on modern systems - it only works with CentOS 6 and older since it hardcodes the expected >columns from netstat output, > That's the second reason for there being no default. Load collection scripts are, by necessity, sensitive to the OS and OS version being used. Since we couldn't guarantee that the script would do anything useful for future OS's, making it the default didn't seem like a good idea. Frankly, I still think a default is not a good idea as you really need to verify the script works for your particular OS. I suppose we could make that more clear in the docs. Yes, these are valid points. Indeed the script you provide is still in some ways OS dependent, and state-dependent - for example, it requires vmstat to be installed (which is perfectly fine, but should not really be a dependency of XRootD-server I think) and it iterates over all network interfaces by default (which is also fine, but an admin should know it). So yes, you convinced me: No default is better, but having it more clear in the docs would be much appreciated ;-). > >> I'd be willing to fix this ot just use the kernel interface from procfs: /proc/net/dev > That would be greatly appreciated :-) Perfect! I'm on holidays this week, but maybe I'll find the time to do it this week - latest next week when I'm back to work :-). Cheers, Oliver > >> However, the script right now also seems to be made for working on SunOS, and also uses a different version of netstat there - >> and I don't have any SunOS node to test. >> Would it be fine to drop SunOS support? > We no longer support Solaris (a.k.a SunOS). So, the answer is yes. > > Andy > > ######################################################################## > Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list > > To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-L list, click the following link: > https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-L&A=1 ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-L&A=1