Very good explanation, that cleared all questions. Thanks, Palle
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nagios-users- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Powell > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:51 AM > To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Threshold for processes > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:nagios-users- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Palle L Jensen > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:09 AM > > To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: [Nagios-users] Threshold for processes > > > > > > > > When I check the CPU/Ram/Network utilization it shows very low on both > > CPU's (2-5%) and below half of the Ram utilization, and only 1/10th of > the > > swap file. Network traffic is low as well. > > > > > > > > Here is my question: > > > > > > > > If the CPU and Ram is not overloaded, what is the critical part with > > processes? And what is really the maximum processes that can be run, > when > > the CPU show no overload (not even close)? Also is the default > threshold > > It is entirely possible to have hundreds, thousands or 10's of thousands > of processes 'running' but in a sleep or otherwise idle state with no > system impact if you have enough memory to support them. The critical > part would be the number of processes ready to run but waiting on > processor time. This is generally indicated by the system's load numbers > but even that is not a hard-and-fast measure. For example, I have a quad > processor system with an average load of around 20. That means that > there are 5 processes per processor running, or waiting to run at any > given time (or waiting to access IO systems). Because this is not a > real-time system, it's a mail scanning machine, the few seconds delay > introduced by the number of processes waiting is acceptable. This > probably wouldn't be acceptable on desktop or other type of more > real-time service but even then, priorities can help a lot to maintain a > high load but an interactively normal system. > > > set in Nagios just a general threshold i.e Warning over 200 and > Critical > > over 250 procs. What would make the decision of the Warning/Critical > > threshold? > > The defaults seem pretty arbitrary to me. You should set them to be what > you consider normal for the machine and the duties it's performing. For > example, on the mail system above, it is normal and acceptable to have > ~360 processes 'running' at any given time. I'd be interested if that > exceeded 450-500ish. On another system, it's normal to have about 80 > processes running. I'd be concerned if that exceeded 100. > > HTH, > > -- > Marc > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Nagios-users mailing list > Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users > ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when > reporting any issue. > ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null
