Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:07:49 -0700 From: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> To: Norberto Meijome <numardbsd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using sysctl(1) to gather resource consumption data Message-ID: <20080914120749.GN11991@bunrab.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: <20080914211136.1be3550d@ayiin> References: <20080912234822.GK11991@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20080914211136.1be3550d@ayiin>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Gx528pKVMenWl2Sw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:11:36PM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote: > ... > Out of curiosity, how does bsnmpd compare to your approach with regards to > impact on the system. It is part of 7.0 , not sure about previous version= s, and > it is definitely a more standard and cross platform approach , with suppo= rt @ > NOC / alerting side of things.=20 >=20 > (for what is worth, i've only used net-snmpd , not bsnmpd )... Understood. As I understand it, an SNMP daemon (whether bsnmpd or net-snmpd) would require some configuration on the remote host, and I wasn't willing to require that. Also, the only times I have used SNMP, it has been using a version that did not support encryption in any form (as for as I know), and since some of the transit was over facilities we don't control, I thought it would be a bit more sensible to use SSH for the transport. There is a moderate amount of work in setting up the SSH connection in the first place: the first version of my script actually had the "shepherd" script establish a new SSH connection to each remote host every 5 minutes; examing a ktrace of that convinced me that SSH session creation was not something I wanted to do on a frequent basis for a mechanism that was intended to be low impact. But keeping that SSH session around and "squirting" a little over 800 bytes of payload down the pipe every 5 minutes -- or even every 10 seconds -- shouldn't be too much impact. (As a colleague pointed out, that's probably less impact than running top(1) has.) Granted, this isn't intended for the one "shepherd" script to deal with thousands of remote hosts -- but I believe that "hundreds" is feasible. Mind, I'm not especially keen on re-inventing stuff that already works (or can be reasonably persuaded to work). But in this case, running an SNMP daemon seemed to fail to meet my (admittedly, somewhat self- imposed) requirements. Peace, david --=20 David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org Depriving a girl or boy of an opportunity for education is evil. See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. --Gx528pKVMenWl2Sw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkjM/pMACgkQmprOCmdXAD2NiQCeLVa6vWb1gwpqDs69onZ2ZT5N Yt8AnjcaG7vcX9OtHUjSQcprxnl6W/nG =0ZIF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Gx528pKVMenWl2Sw--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080914120749.GN11991>