Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:46:47 -0800 From: Lamont Lucas <lamont@cluepon.com> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Guillaume <silencer@free-4ever.net> Subject: Re: cacti system tuning Message-ID: <20061113194647.GK52665@clavin.cluepon.com> In-Reply-To: <20061113191902.GJ28339@elvis.mu.org> References: <BAY116-F36203D30F74A7563F7A171C1F60@phx.gbl> <4557988B.4000902@free-4ever.net> <20061113013209.GB65089@Geeks.ORG> <20061113191902.GJ28339@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 11:19:02AM -0800, Bill Fumerola wrote: > it's also much easier to debug problems with either the poller itself > or the devices being polled. > > i'd use the php poller with cacti. Agreed. I had problems with the poller taking too long to process our 1200 datasources but quickly resolved it by increasing the number of poller processes that could run at once, from the default 1 up to 4. My 6.1-release machine (2 cpus, plenty of ram) never breaks a sweat polling those hosts and processing the results. -- - Lamont "I am not an atomic playboy."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061113194647.GK52665>