Christophe Simon
Christophe Simon
Indeed, it's a huge amount of broks... Could you tell us how many passive checks you have, and at which frequency they are fed ?
@NicolasLM That's far less than I expected for such a huge number of broks. There's something weird... I'll try to reproduce this on my dev platform.
I had a test on my dev platform. I looped over 4000 passive check results sent to a single receiver through the ws_arbiter module. The 4000 results are pushed in...
The check results (external commands, in fact) are sent from receiver to the scheduler (through the arbiter), but the broks are gathered by the broker. I see two different possibilities:...
How many checks does your remote poller execute under normal conditions (without the named pipe injection) ? Does it leak under this workload ? And just to be sure, did...
Hi, sorry for this late answer. Could you have a test with this PR (https://github.com/naparuba/shinken/pull/1828) by setting `max_q_size` to `1024` and `results_batch` to `2048` on pollers and reactionners, and `broks_batch`...
Any news about this issue ? Could you test the linked PR ?
In my opinion, there are 2 different aspects. - The first one, which is the purpose of smart notifications, is to alter the conditions under which notifications are sent in...
This is quite tricky to implement, as there may be corner case not easy to track down. Could you expose your problematic with a concrete case, perhaps it already exists...
Let's analyze this, then :)