vnstat / network wrong peaks while delete snapshot
Lars Schotte
lars.schotte at schotteweb.de
Sun Jun 5 21:17:36 UTC 2011
did you install some vmware software / drivers on the guest?
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:39:30 +0200
Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> yes and because you have NO CHANCE to get support
> for fedora from VMware the question is if this
> trigger can not be corrected somewhere in the guest
>
> that "16777216.00 TiB" is impossible in some
> seconds is clear - so my question was not
> to discuss where the problem is, my question
> is if it can be pragmatic fixed somewhere
>
> Am 05.06.2011 22:32, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> > well, the guest operating system is measuring traffic that doesnt
> > exist. that is a good start.
> >
> > now, normally, operating systems do NOT measure traffic that doesnt
> > exist, so there must be something wrong with the network card
> > driver.
> >
> > guess what.. it is not ... because vmware emulates a network card
> > which most operating systems have a (good) driver of. so we can
> > rule out an operating system or a network device driver error.
> >
> > so we should ask vmware why they implemented crazy transfer rate
> > emulation on that virtualized device while doing snapshots. which of
> > course have nothing to do with the fact that there is a network
> > device emulated or used. so for me it looks like vmware did brake it
> > intentionally.
> >
> > why they shoud do sth like that? because they are ... "different".
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:30:21 +0200
> > Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 05.06.2011 21:19, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> >>> thats exactly what vmware needs to comprehend.
> >>
> >> WHAT should VMware do if the guest is measuring traffic which does
> >> not exist?
> >>
> >>> you dont need to tell me that ;-)
> >>
> >> "so you have to somehow convince vmware not to take snapshots
> >> through that virtualized ethernet devices" and your ideas solve
> >> this on the pysical layer or about "routing on the host" showing
> >> me that you have never worked with a ESXi-Cluster
> >>
> >> i try to solve a little problem IN THE GUEST and not to
> >> change the whole infrastructure because this would change
> >> exactly nothing on the "vnstat"-problem
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:55:53 +0200
> >>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> sorry to say but you have no idea what about i am speaking
> >>>> snapshots are not taken "through that virtualized ethernet
> >>>> device"
> >>>>
> >>>> the guest is freezed for a short time to take a consistent
> >>>> state of his drives which are copied on the host, the copy
> >>>> has NOTHING to to with the ethernet device in the guest
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 05.06.2011 20:50, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> >>>>> so you have to somehow convince vmware not to take snapshots
> >>>>> through that virtualized ethernet devices. maybe an extra
> >>>>> ethernet device would help. the first one left for that
> >>>>> snapshots fiction and second for networking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:34:49 +0200
> >>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:55, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> >>>>>>> i definitely wouldnt come to that idea to monitor guests on
> >>>>>>> guests w/ vnstat because even if it had worked perfectly, its
> >>>>>>> still just a fictional ethernet device.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> what is there fictional?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> it is a ethernet-device with all features of a ethernet-device
> >>>>>> ond the guest does know nothing about virtualization
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> maybe a vmware monitoring software would be
> >>>>>>> more precise or an alternative would be to bind each to a
> >>>>>>> virtual network card and do the monitoring on the host
> >>>>>>> measuring only the output data and then routing all this
> >>>>>>> devices out, thereby using the host as a router, which is of
> >>>>>>> course a more complicated setup and i am not even sure if it
> >>>>>>> would work, but thats the way i would try to build it up.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jesus for what reason?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the host is not a router, the host is a virtual switch
> >>>>>> and yes you have monitoring on the vCenter-Server but not
> >>>>>> in a console like output and not with exactly numbers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this are two different worlds and i see no reason why
> >>>>>> vnstat would not work on the guest because it does
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> only while snapshots are taken / removed there are some
> >>>>>> short untrue peaks which would be easaliy could filtered
> >>>>>> in the guest-software only by their hughe numbers which are
> >>>>>> clearly impossible and the problem is that this does not
> >>>>>> happen and so if some measuring says "20 GB in two seconds"
> >>>>>> all averages are destroyed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:20:16 +0200
> >>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> yes!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> works perfectly, only after dealing with snapshots there are
> >>>>>>>> this horrible peaks on 64bit guests
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:18, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> >>>>>>>>> w8, so you are saying that you run vnstat on the guests?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:16:44 +0200
> >>>>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:12, schrieb Lars Schotte:
> >>>>>>>>>>> is ifconfig showing this huge numberg at that time as
> >>>>>>>>>>> well?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> not currently, but i have seen such outputs in "ifconfig"
> >>>>>>>>>> too
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> do you have a 64bit OS or 32bit?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> seems only affect x86_64 guests
> >>>>>>>>>> good input - the voip-machine is the only 32bit and
> >>>>>>>>>> does not show this
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> did you try to report it to vmware as well?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> they will anser "fedora is not official supported and
> >>>>>>>>>> open-vm-tools vom rpmfusion too" on ESXi :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:06:48 +0200
> >>>>>>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has anybody an idea for which package i should file a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugreport for this? i guess "vnstat" is only the postman
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> every night from friday to saturday from our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fedora-vmware-guests is made a snapshot by "VMware Data
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Recovery" to take a consistent backup and while deleting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the snapshot something triggers horrible wrong values to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "vnstat" which makes monthly summary useless
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> see below :-(
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eth0 / daily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> day rx | tx | total
> >>>>>>>>>>>> | avg. rate
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/07/11 16777216.00 TiB | 5.56 GiB | 16777216.00
> >>>>>>>>>>>> TiB | 1668.00 Tbit/s 05/08/11 855.27 MiB | 4.24
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 5.07 GiB | 492.63 kbit/s 05/09/11 2.35 GiB
> >>>>>>>>>>>> | 72.14 GiB | 74.49 GiB | 7.23 Mbit/s 05/10/11
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.47 GiB | 11.41 GiB | 12.88 GiB | 1.25 Mbit/s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/11/11 1.11 GiB | 6.19 GiB | 7.30 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 708.76 kbit/s 05/12/11 1.17 GiB | 5.82 GiB | 6.99
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 678.38 kbit/s 05/13/11 1.12 GiB | 6.50 GiB
> >>>>>>>>>>>> | 7.62 GiB | 739.88 kbit/s 05/14/11 33554432.00 TiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 4.10 GiB | 33554432.00 TiB | 3336.00 Tbit/s 05/15/11
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 778.85 MiB | 4.45 GiB | 5.21 GiB | 505.87 kbit/s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/16/11 1.30 GiB | 7.37 GiB | 8.67 GiB | 842.06
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kbit/s 05/17/11 1.38 GiB | 8.18 GiB | 9.56 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 928.20 kbit/s 05/18/11 1.21 GiB | 6.83 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 8.04 GiB | 780.32 kbit/s 05/19/11 1.03 GiB | 5.68 GiB
> >>>>>>>>>>>> | 6.72 GiB | 652.10 kbit/s 05/20/11 1.11 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.18 GiB | 6.29 GiB | 610.67 kbit/s 05/21/11
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 16777216.00 TiB | 3.97 GiB | 16777216.00 TiB | 1668.00
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tbit/s 05/22/11 902.15 MiB | 6.74 GiB | 7.62 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 739.58 kbit/s 05/23/11 1.28 GiB | 16.56 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 17.84 GiB | 1.73 Mbit/s 05/24/11 1.60 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 11.42 GiB | 13.02 GiB | 1.26 Mbit/s 05/25/11 1.47
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 6.65 GiB | 8.12 GiB | 788.78 kbit/s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/26/11 1.23 GiB | 7.40 GiB | 8.64 GiB | 838.46
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kbit/s 05/27/11 1.43 GiB | 6.75 GiB | 8.19
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 794.70 kbit/s 05/28/11 33554432.00 TiB | 5.44
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 33554432.00 TiB | 3336.00 Tbit/s 05/29/11 855.65
> >>>>>>>>>>>> MiB | 4.89 GiB | 5.72 GiB | 555.47 kbit/s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/30/11 1.43 GiB | 9.20 GiB | 10.62 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.03 Mbit/s 05/31/11 1.77 GiB | 9.52 GiB | 11.29
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 1.10 Mbit/s 06/01/11 1.51 GiB | 9.43 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 10.94 GiB | 1.06 Mbit/s 06/02/11 906.48 MiB | 5.90
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 6.79 GiB | 658.85 kbit/s 06/03/11 2.36 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 9.40 GiB | 11.77 GiB | 1.14 Mbit/s 06/04/11
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 16777216.00 TiB | 5.15 GiB | 16777216.00 TiB | 1668.00
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tbit/s 06/05/11 585.88 MiB | 2.30 GiB | 2.87 GiB |
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 417.64 kbit/s
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> estimated 877 MiB | 3.44 GiB | 4.30 GiB
> >>>>>>>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Lars Schotte
@ Hana (F14)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110605/e486afac/attachment.bin
More information about the devel
mailing list