[94432] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [cacti-announce] Cacti 0.8.6j Released (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason LeBlanc)
Mon Jan 22 08:22:03 2007
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:20:24 -0500
From: Jason LeBlanc <jml@packetpimp.org>
To: Chris Owen <owenc@hubris.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <103B9245-AC76-4C52-8E4D-9733E5725719@hubris.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Anyone thats seen MRTG (simple, static) on a large network realizes that
decoupling the graphing from the polling is necessary. The disk i/o is
brutal. Cacti has a slick interface, but also doesn't scale all that
well for large networks. I prefer RTG, though I haven't seen a nice
interface for it, yet.
Chris Owen wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:35 PM, Travis H. wrote:
>
>> That is, most of the dynamically-generated content doesn't need to be
>> generated on demand. If you're pulling data from a database, pull it
>> all and generate static HTML files. Then you don't even need CGI
>> functionality on the end-user interface. It thus scales much better
>> than the dynamic stuff, or SSL-encrypted sessions, because it isn't
>> doing any computation.
>
> While I certainly agree that cacti is a bit of a security nightmare,
> what you suggest may not scale all that well for a site doing much
> graphing. I'm sure the average cacti installation is recording
> thousands of things every 5 minutes but virtually none of those are
> ever actually graphed. Those that are viewed certainly aren't viewed
> every 5 minutes. Even if polling and graphing took the same amount of
> resources that would double the load on the machine. My guess though
> is that graphing actually takes many times the resources of polling.
> Just makes sense to only graph stuff when necessary.
>
> Chris
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFFtE/NElUlCLUT2d0RAtbeAJ91qMtm8VtWSLHJ/gLsg3DnqitlwQCeK1pn
> bqmZZoK821K76KMj/0bxDNk=
> =Rx6P
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
