<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Okay. 4-6 to seconds is absolutely to much and it may be related how the query by time is implement. The current search is pretty brute force finding the "right" time. Its not searching linearly but there are no "index" on time. Searching by index is much quicker and query by time will be related to the size. With your 6 values the search has to be done 6 times over a list that are 5000 items. The future idea I mentioned will be a sort of index for the timestamp by using a sorted set. What I would recommend you to do is to use index instead and see how that effect the performance. Since you use a interval of 120 sec, the -24H will be the same as index 720, -96H will be the same as index 2880, etc. I will try to get the time to set up an equivalent test environment. Keep me updated of your investigation Anders On 09/17/2014 09:18 PM, Rahul Amaram wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:5419DE94.4090504@vizury.com" type="cite"> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">When it comes to your last finding I have no explanation. Just to understand you compare using -24H with -10080M (-168H). Would it not be better to compare -24H and -1440M. I have to get back to you on this but I would need to get the result when running in cacheCli since you get the time it takes, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Section-4.4">http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Section-4.4</a>. This was a typo. I was talking about -168H and -10080M. Also, I used "bischeck cli.CacheCli" to check this. And I re-ran this now, but not finding much difference between both of them (it takes about 4-6 seconds to retrieve the value). Reg. other points, I have to get back to you. On a side note, I have upgraded from redis-server 2.6 to 2.8, just to rule out any version performance issues. Thanks, Rahul. On Thursday 18 September 2014 12:19 AM, Anders Håål wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:5419D7A2.3070902@ingby.com" type="cite">Hi Rahul, Looking at your threshold this means that you will retrieve max 6 values, which should not be that "hard" even if its a time based query - using index is faster and is something we will look into in the future. Since you run the query every 120 sec it means that you currently have at lest 5040 items in the cache for this each service, which does not sound to bad. 10 services at least 50000 in total. What I like you to check is the following: - If you connect with some JMX client against bischeck you can see all the different timers <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Chapter-5">http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Chapter-5</a>. The once that are related to threshold are inserting to start with but check all the different timers if some one have long execution time. - Since the its the redis-server that are consume a high level of CPU its interesting to see the configuration for redis - like the amount of memory allocated. If redis need to swap its not good. - Please check the redis log files. - You can also connect to redis with redis-cli and run command "monitor" to get a real time listing on the commands executed against redis. - Also check with top the percentage of %wa, waiting for io. How much memory do you have on the server? Only running bischeck and redis? - How much cpu is bischeck consuming? Do you see any peaks? - Also check the bischeck log to see any ERROR or WARN. - And finally - has this been the behavior from the beginning or has it increased over time? What happen if you restart bischeck (not reload)? Try to collect some more info so we can try to determine where the issue is related. When it comes to your last finding I have no explanation. Just to understand you compare using -24H with -10080M (-168H). Would it not be better to compare -24H and -1440M. I have to get back to you on this but I would need to get the result when running in cacheCli since you get the time it takes, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Section-4.4">http://www.bischeck.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Bischeck_installation_and_administration_guide.html#toc-Section-4.4</a>. Regards Anders On 09/17/2014 07:13 PM, Rahul Amaram wrote: <blockquote type="cite">Hi, I am observing very high CPU consumption by the java process and redis-server. redis-server being single threaded it self is taking 100% CPU. I have about 10 hosts, with about 10 services each (with one service item per service). The time interval for generation of value is 120s. The threshold that I have defined is: avg($$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-24H],$$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-96H],$$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-168H],$$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-336H],$$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-504H],$$HOSTNAME$$-$$SERVICENAME$$-$$SERVICEITEMNAME$$[-672H]) However, currently, not more than 3 values, are available. I am already running this on a c3.xlarge machine (4 cores) and the load average is quite often > 4 resulting in delay of generation of values. Any pointers in what could be causing the high load would be much appreciated. On a slightly different note, while using cli.CacheCli, retrieving the value of a service item one week back using hours (-24H) is considerably faster than retrieving it using minutes (-10080M). Again, why does bischeck behave this way? Thanks, Rahul. </blockquote> </blockquote> <img moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://web.vizury.com/website/in/wp-content/themes/vizury/images/adtech_mailer.jpg"></blockquote> <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- Ingby<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.ingby.com"><http://www.ingby.com></a> IngbyForge<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://gforge.ingby.com"><http://gforge.ingby.com></a> bischeck - dynamic and adaptive thresholds for Nagios <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.bischeck.org"><http://www.bischeck.org></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anders.haal@ingby.com">anders.haal@ingby.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:anders.haal@ingby.com"><mailto:anders.haal@ingby.com></a> Mjukvara genom ingenjörsmässig kreativitet och kompetens Ingenjörsbyn Box 531 101 30 Stockholm Sweden <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.ingby.com">www.ingby.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.ingby.com/"><http://www.ingby.com/></a> Mobil: +46 70 575 35 46 Tele: +46 75 75 75 090 Fax: +46 75 75 75 091 </pre> </body> </html>