In regards to reducing the alerts by changing the probe time from 30 seconds to 1 minute. It was a nice try and I could see it working in theory, but it has not reduced the occurrences of Short Term Packet Loss.
In terms of ROI... The Security & Infrastructure group I belong to is well steeped in the UNIX traditions. The physical servers are managed by our server Operations (OPS) Group. The OPS group is trying to move everything they can to Windows, they have a deal with Microsoft. Thank you Randy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:InterMapper- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Lieberman > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:59 PM > To: 'InterMapper Discussion' > Subject: RE: Spam:*******, [IM-Talk] RE: Migrated InterMapper from Linux > (5.4.5) to Windows Server 2008 (5.5.3). > > Lee, > You asked: "Any ideas on why we are seeing such a difference in > behaviour?" > While IMHO Ed's recommendation is correct - it will help resolve the > problem, it didn't exactly answer your question. > Thirty-two bit Linux in 2Gb of RAM had lots of room to operate. It > was reasonably FD&H and so could handle your 1500+ devices. A Dual Core > 64bit machine running WinServ2008R2 in 4Gb of RAM is not swimming in > excess RAM and is most likely even now paging memory. > Say what you will about ROI and the Value of Windows... Given the > same resources and not needing to load a GUI to run, Linux will far out- > perform Windows assuming essentially the same code is in use. [That new > box would probably be awesome running under (free) Debian Linux.] Of > course the Linux installs of IM can't read NT services and so sometimes > Windows is the only option. > _________________ > Mike Lieberman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Konowal, Ed > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:36 PM > To: InterMapper Discussion > Subject: Spam:*******, [IM-Talk] RE: Migrated InterMapper from Linux > (5.4.5) to Windows Server 2008 (5.5.3). > > I don't have a good reason, but I've experienced similar problems. Try > lengthening your global poll interval from 30 sec to 1 minute. See what > happens. > > Ed Konowal > Lee County School District > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Baker > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 4:17 PM > To: InterMapper Discussion ([email protected]) > Subject: Spam:*******, [IM-Talk] Migrated InterMapper from Linux (5.4.5) > to Windows Server 2008 (5.5.3). > > Earlier this week our Server Group created a dual processor, 4Gb of RAM on > a > 64 bit Windows 2008 R2 Server for us to install InterMapper on. Our legacy > InterMapper configuration was running on a single CPU, 2Gb of RAM on 32 > bit > RedHat Linux installation. The two VMs are in the same VM cluster, using > the same Vswitch and network addressing. > > Earlier this week I installed InterMapper 5.5.3 on the Windows server and > copied over the data from the Linux server. During the file copying, the > InterMapper services on both systems was shut down. To get the maps, I > had to copy the contents of the Maps/5.4 directory into the Maps/5.5 > directory on the Windows server. Things looked good with the exception > that the Windows Server had a different address than the production version > for obvious reasons, but a number of our devices are configured to only > respond to queries from the production address. > > Today, we shutdown the InterMapper services on both systems, performed > a final data copy, and the contents of the Maps/5.4 directory was copied into > the Maps/5.5 on the Windows Server. The Linux server was shutdown, and > the Windows server was reconfigured with the production IP address to take > over. > Everything appears normal with one exception. Of the nearly 1,500 devices > we are monitoring, numerous devices are being reported by InterMapper as > having Short Term Packet Loss of 3% to 6% on average. Some devices are > being reported as being down when in fact they are available and accessible. > > After checking settings, the performance of the network and server in > VMWare, the server, and other network tools, we see no obvious reasons > for InterMapper to be reporting these conditions. Disabling the Windows > Firewall does not make any improvements. > > Any ideas on why we are seeing such a difference in behaviour? > > Thank you. > Randy Baker > Network Security Technician > Georgian College, Barrie, Ontario > Georgian College - One of Canada's Top 100 Employers > > __________________________________________________________ > __________ > List archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ > To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > __________ > List archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ > To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected] > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4778 - Release Date: 01/31/12 > > __________________________________________________________ > __________ > List archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ > To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected] > > > -- > This message was scanned by the Georgian College ESVA and is believed to > be clean. ____________________________________________________________________ List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]
