LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: LVS DR increased "system CPU" and Excessive Network Traffic

To: "LinuxVirtualServer.org users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: LVS DR increased "system CPU" and Excessive Network Traffic
From: Sal Tepedino <stepedino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:02:09 -0400
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 20:35 +0100, Iain Young wrote:
> a) showing "System CPU" at around 20%, which vanishes if I kill
> LVS.

This shouldn't be. My systems sit at idle, basically, waiting to do
something. The heartbeating should be of minimal impact. 
What method are you using for director/real server failover? keepalived,
heartbeat/ldirectord or something else? It would help if you posted
configs.

> b) Sending out an awful lot of LAN traffic (120,000 packets an
> hour!), which I'm guessing is multicast [which is to be expected],
> but surely it doesnt need *that* many packets! Again, it dissapears
> when I shutdown LVS.

Depending on your setup, you should have, lets say, 1 packet per machine
per second. Perhaps 2 if you use two different heartbeat methods. So,
say, about 3600/server * 2, 7200, * 2 for multiple heartbeat methods,
14400... Now lets assume that because I don't pay much attention to the
packets flying back and forth between the machines I'm off by alot... I
doubt I'm off by an order of magnitude... am I?

> Curiously, even if I start LVS w/o running the master and backup
> daemons, then I also still both effects. This is on Ubuntu Feisty,
> kernel 2.6.20, ipvsadm 1.24
> 
> 
> Anyone have any ideas if this is a) Normal, b) What I might have
> missed, c) How to fix it ?

A) Not likely
B & C) Not really sure without seeing configs or knowing what method
you're using.

> I could move the LAN traffic off to another interface, and a crossover
> cable, but that really only moves the problem, and doesnt sort the
> CPU system issue.

Exactly. There's something else going on here. Masking the problem won't
do much good. Do the directors and real servers (I realize they're the
same box, I more mean the services) act as expected? Do they fail over
from director to director? Do real servers get removed as expected when
shutdown?

-- 
Sal Tepedino <stepedino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>