|
LOG DUMP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oct 20 11:02:17 vs-00 nanny[17567]: bad load average returned: 216
down 38+08:35 ns-02 down 8+15:08 vs-00 up 8+13:56, 0
users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 vs-01 up 8+13:22, 1 user, load
0.59, 0.20, 0.05 ws-01 down 38+16:52 ws-02 down 16+12:12
Oct 20 11:02:20 vs-00 nanny[17568]: running command "ruptime"
"192.168.1.11" "uptime"
Oct 20 11:02:20 vs-00 nanny[17568]: bad load average returned: 216
down 38+08:35 ns-02 down 8+15:08 vs-00 up 8+13:56, 0
users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 vs-01 up 8+13:22, 1 user, load
0.59, 0.20, 0.05 ws-01 down 38+16:52 ws-02 down 16+12:12
Oct 20 11:02:37 vs-00 nanny[17567]: running command "ruptime"
"192.168.1.12" "uptime"
Oct 20 11:02:37 vs-00 nanny[17567]: bad load average returned: 216
down 38+08:35 ns-02 down 8+15:08 vs-00 up 8+13:56, 0
users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 vs-01 up 8+13:22, 1 user, load
0.59, 0.20, 0.05 ws-01 down 38+16:53 ws-02 down 16+12:13
Oct 20 11:02:40 vs-00 nanny[17568]: running command "ruptime"
"192.168.1.11" "uptime"
Oct 20 11:02:40 vs-00 nanny[17568]: bad load average returned: 216
down 38+08:35 ns-02 down 8+15:08 vs-00 up 8+13:56, 0
users, load 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 vs-01 up 8+13:22, 1 user, load
0.59, 0.20, 0.05 ws-01 down 38+16:53 ws-02 down 16+12:13
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
END LOG DUMP
What worries me the most is that this is wreaking havoc on the
load-balancing algorythm. We're now at a point where we have to pay strict
attention to the algorythms used. Any ideas on where to start looking at
this? It does look like nanny is choking on the 216. IP addresses of our
machines (at least that's what comes to mind when I see the 216). It checks
the 192.168.1.XX IPs just fine it looks like.
Any help would be appreciated.
---
DAVID D.W. DOWNEY SENIOR LINUX SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
QIXO, Inc. Home Page =
http://QIXO.com
2192 Fortune Drive Company Email =
ddowney@xxxxxxxx
San Jose, CA 95131 Company Phone = +1
(408) 514-6441
USA Company FAX =
+1 (408) 516-9090
---
|
