[NBLUG/talk] thought I'd ask here also - Anyone have any experience with LTSP?
gandalf at sonic.net
gandalf at sonic.net
Fri Jan 23 17:35:10 PST 2015
Haven't really looked hard at these yet, but here's what I get on
ifconfig and ethtool:
root at ltsp:~# ifconfig
bond0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 40:f2:e9:0a:59:74
inet addr:10.17.17.17 Bcast:10.17.17.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::42f2:e9ff:fe0a:5974/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MASTER MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:3268517354 errors:0 dropped:2380046 overruns:0
frame:0
TX packets:13657964403 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:592762781301 (592.7 GB) TX bytes:18485630452486
(18.4 TB)
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 40:f2:e9:0a:59:74
UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:3266137277 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2973955224 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:592148079085 (592.1 GB) TX bytes:3887567471905 (3.8
TB)
Memory:a9a60000-a9a80000
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 40:f2:e9:0a:59:75
UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1190037 errors:0 dropped:1190019 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2712184181 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:307351015 (307.3 MB) TX bytes:3501979619371 (3.5 TB)
Memory:a9a40000-a9a60000
eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 40:f2:e9:0a:59:76
UP BROADCAST RUNNING SLAVE MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1190040 errors:0 dropped:1190022 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:7971824998 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:307351201 (307.3 MB) TX bytes:11096083361210 (11.0
TB)
Memory:a9a20000-a9a40000
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:2487516947 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2487516947 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:17392701015352 (17.3 TB) TX bytes:17392701015352
(17.3 TB)
usb0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 42:f2:e9:0a:59:73
inet addr:169.254.95.120 Bcast:169.254.95.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::40f2:e9ff:fe0a:5973/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:2314233 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2498909 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:189279256 (189.2 MB) TX bytes:282020660 (282.0 MB)
root at ltsp:~# ethtool eth0
Settings for eth0:
Supported ports: [ TP ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: Twisted Pair
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
MDI-X: Unknown
Supports Wake-on: pumbg
Wake-on: g
Current message level: 0x00000003 (3)
drv probe
Link detected: yes
root at ltsp:~# ethtool eth1
Settings for eth1:
Supported ports: [ TP ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: Twisted Pair
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
MDI-X: Unknown
Supports Wake-on: pumbg
Wake-on: g
Current message level: 0x00000003 (3)
drv probe
Link detected: yes
root at ltsp:~# ethtool eth2
Settings for eth2:
Supported ports: [ TP ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: 1000Mb/s
Duplex: Full
Port: Twisted Pair
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
MDI-X: Unknown
Supports Wake-on: pumbg
Wake-on: g
Current message level: 0x00000003 (3)
drv probe
Link detected: yes
root at ltsp:~# ethtool eth3
Settings for eth3:
Supported ports: [ TP ]
Supported link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Supported pause frame use: No
Supports auto-negotiation: Yes
Advertised link modes: 10baseT/Half 10baseT/Full
100baseT/Half 100baseT/Full
1000baseT/Full
Advertised pause frame use: No
Advertised auto-negotiation: Yes
Speed: Unknown!
Duplex: Unknown! (255)
Port: Twisted Pair
PHYAD: 1
Transceiver: internal
Auto-negotiation: on
MDI-X: Unknown
Supports Wake-on: pumbg
Wake-on: g
Current message level: 0x00000003 (3)
drv probe
Link detected: no
On 2015-01-23 16:11, Steve S. wrote:
> Just a sudden thought... might a NIC be mis-set to a slow speed,
> causing all sorts of funky backups, mis-queueing, context-switching,
> etc...?
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Jordan Erickson
> <jerickson at logicalnetworking.net> wrote:
>
>> Can you give us a bit more detail as to your network/server setup?
>> You
>> say you're running 24cpus and 128gigs. Might be a logical
>> explanation to
>> house NFS on its own server.. What's your network speed? Thin (or
>> fat)
>> client specs? Distro?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jordan
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 03:52 PM, gandalf at sonic.net wrote:
>>> It's actually a NFS to a separate server. I'm not sure why it was
>> done
>>> that way. To me this would probably further congest the network
>> while
>>> not being nearly as fast as a high performance direct disk
>> interface.
>>>
>>> On 2015-01-23 15:00, Omar Eljumaily wrote:
>>>> Not speaking from experience with LTSP server, but my guess
>> would be
>>>> that it is a disk io bottleneck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21617500/understanding-load-average-vs-cpu-usage
>> [1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that web browsers cache on disk most of their content
>> and
>>>> media before rendering it. That's a lot of users hitting a
>> single
>>>> disk drive or array. Do you have a large RAID array? SSD?
>>>>
>>>> Omar
>>>>
>>>> On 1/23/2015 2:19 PM, gandalf at sonic.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm seeing very high load averages with low CPU usage. The two
>> main
>>>>> culprits are chrome and firefox. I've got about a hundred users
>>>>> sharing the LTSP server which has some rich resources (24cpus
>> and
>>>>> 128gigs).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> talk mailing list
>>>>> talk at nblug.org
>>>>> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk [2]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> talk mailing list
>>>> talk at nblug.org
>>>> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk [2]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at nblug.org
>>> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk [2]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at nblug.org
>> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk [2]
>
> --
>
> "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of
> childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -CS Lewis
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21617500/understanding-load-average-vs-cpu-usage
> [2] http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
More information about the talk
mailing list