perfsonar development work

["Vedrin Jeliazkov" <>]

Hi again,

Guilherme Rhoden 
<>
 wrote:

> Vedrin Jeliazkov wrote:

> > Guilherme Rhoden 
> > <>
> >  wrote:

<snip>

> >>The XML configuration file has 1,4Mb and the java process is using more
> >>that 330Mb of memory.
> >>
> >>Anyone has some experience with this number of interfaces?
> > 
> > 
> > There are so many contributing factors, that it would be rather difficult
to
> > make comparisons. Here at ISTF we were forced to reduce the number of
> > interfaces in our config, because of performance issues. But, our server
has
> a
> > very limited amount of RAM (768 MB) and hosts LS and RRD-MA-Python in
> addition
> > to RRD-MA-Java. We found helpful the following JVM options in our
particular
> > case:
> > 
> > -Xms192m -Xmx192m -Xincgc
> > 
> The problem is with my cacti machine, it has only 512Mb of RAM and the
> processor is AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+.
> 
> Which is the recommended hardware to implement java RRD-MA service with
> around 1k interfaces?

Well, it looks like there's no any official recommendation yet. However, based
on my experience so far, I would suggest that for 1K interfaces you should
probably have at least 1, preferably 2 or more GB of RAM. It would be nice if
the host could be dedicated for a given perfSONAR service (you might even
consider running eXist on a different host and see if this improves overall
performance).

Maybe Chris and Joe could provide some more details for the hardware they're
using (with 330 and 419 interfaces respectively).

<snip>

Kind regards,
Vedrin