On 9/14/07, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was Rob working with me on the Linux/390 wiki system that led him to the
discovery that the IBM JDK was issuing 10ms sleeps. It wasn't just in the
newer versions of the JDK, it was in the 1.4.2 ones as well. So, upgrading
to a newer
On 9/14/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the importance of that depends on what you want to know, doesn't it?
If you're interested in which Linux process is hogging the guest, the
absolute number is irrelevant.
But if you're comparing usage before and after some configuration
van der Heij
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:07 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: linux performance behind load balancer
On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finishing the thought, IBM's OMEGAMON comes to mind as well. There's
more
than one decent performance monitor
On Friday, 09/14/2007 at 02:19 EDT, Rob van der Heij
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you *are* very right that performance monitor should be part of
your Proof of Concept. We don't see a PoC fail these days because
software does not work or cannot be found. We see it fail because
people suffer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 6:48 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Evans, Kevin
R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob,
As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up to implementation of
our first user to come into a new zLinux front end, can you give ant
further details on your comment below?
: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Post
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 6:48 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Evans, Kevin R [EMAIL PROTECTED
comment below?
Thanks
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob van der Heij
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:07 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: linux performance behind load balancer
On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 6:48 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Evans, Kevin R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob,
As we are just switching to Omegamon and almost up
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], barton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are some issues with WAS right now that seriously impact Linux under
z/VM. Rob's
out of town, he can explain better. The problem is that the current JDK
polls every
10ms. this means
Of
Mark Post
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:20 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 6:48 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Evans, Kevin R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob,
As we are just switching to Omegamon
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 4:57 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Marcy
Cortes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
Do you know what level of the JDK that started in?
It's been around for a while. The version I was running at the time Rob first
investigated was an older 1.4.2 release.
Mark Post
barton wrote:
Forgive the soap box. This is old news. Linux process data in any
virtual environment is
wrong. This was measured and presented in a production environment as
off by order of
magnitude. This is true for all releases and distributions of linux.
ibm claims there is
a fix in sles10,
Thank you all for sharing experiences and for advice. It gives me
hope there may be a way around my brick wall!
Rob, page-in is what this problem feels like. But
the lpar has 6G/2G of main/xstor and the total virtual storage
of all the guests together is 3264M, of which the problem linux guest
A decent performance monitor (ESALPS comes to mind) will tell you exactly what
processes
are using the cpu and exactly how much. Have you considered running a decent
performance
monitor?
Kate Riggsby wrote:
Thank you all for sharing experiences and for advice. It gives me
hope there may be
On Thursday, 09/13/2007 at 10:22 EDT, barton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A decent performance monitor (ESALPS comes to mind) will tell you
exactly what
processes
are using the cpu and exactly how much. Have you considered running a
decent
performance
monitor?
Finishing the thought, IBM's
Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
Altmark
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7:56 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
On Thursday, 09/13/2007 at 10:22 EDT, barton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finishing the thought, IBM's OMEGAMON comes to mind as well. There's more
than one decent performance monitor Out There, so shop and compare.
But since that will present incorrect CPU breakdown per Linux process,
it may lead to wrong
On Thursday, 09/13/2007 at 04:07 EDT, Rob van der Heij
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/13/07, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finishing the thought, IBM's OMEGAMON comes to mind as well. There's
more
than one decent performance monitor Out There, so shop and compare.
But since that
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 9:38 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kate Riggsby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-snip-
Mark, the lpar is running z/VM 5.2 at 0601. The linux guests are
running SLES9 SP3 (64bit). The system is using Performance Toolkit.
cat /proc/meminfo shows:
MemTotal: 2050128
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 9:45 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan
Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-snip-
SLES 10 and RHEL 5 correct for the virtualization effects and OMEGAMON
gives the normalized numbers.
Unfortunately in this case, SLES9 is being used, so the incorrect performance
data
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 1:20 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Kate Riggsby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-snip-
The linux userid running the application was using about 3-4% of the
cpu. The day we added our instance to the (external) load balancer its
base cpu consumption went to 18% of the
On 9/10/07, Kate Riggsby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been told that the load-balancer polls are an xchange of
Hello/Server Hello packets on port 443 (not a full-blown SSL handshake)
every 2 seconds.
Although you say there's enough real memory, it may be the system is
not configure
Greetings,
As part of our linux proof-of-concept project we built a new instance
of the servers which provide our big student services
application. The application runs on Oracle Web Application Server.
The zlinux instance is running pretty much alone on a z/800
ifl and has oodles of real memory.
for your cooperation.
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Kate Riggsby
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:21 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: [LINUX-390] linux performance behind load balancer
Greetings,
As part of our linux proof
Marcy Cortes wrote:
I don't know how helpful this is
But we do run F5 loadbalancers in front of our biggest app. There are 2
servers hitting us every 5 seconds each for HTTP and for 2 for HTTPS.
So, a total 4 hits every 5 seconds. But it runs across 17 z9 EC IFL's
and there's never an
25 matches
Mail list logo
