perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Szymon Trocha <>]

Hi Winnie,

W dniu 2014-12-19 o 15:58, Winnie Lacesso pisze:
> Happy Friday!
>
> Goodness this is a busy list. Lots to learn from reading posts about
> various problems.
> AND MANY THANKS to those who are answering!! Very helpful!
>
> Think iptables is correct now on lcgnetmon (leaving aside lcgnetmon02 for
> now) such that 861 is open, & 80+443 *only* to a required small set of
> hosts. I hope. Ports above 1024 are not firewalled at all.
>
> tail of most recently modified /var/log/perfsonar/*log looks better,
> although it'll probably take at least a day before enough data is
> accumulated to show up as, well, data.
>
> Many more questions but here's a few: (I know I do have to read more of the
> doc which hopefully will explain a lot)
>
> lcgnetmon is for net.perfSONAR.Latency (in GOC-DB as such);
> lcgnetmon02 is for net.perfSONAR.Bandwidth (ditto)
>
> So, this makes sense to me:
> root@lcgnetmon>
>  chkconfig --list | grep bw
> bwctld          0:off   1:off   2:off   3:off   4:off   5:off   6:off
> perfsonarbuoy_bw_collector      0:off   1:off   2:off   3:off   4:off   5:off 
> 6:off
> perfsonarbuoy_bw_master 0:off   1:off   2:off   3:off   4:off   5:off   6:off
>
> so why is owamp_bwctl.log active if lcgnetmon is a lat not a bw box ?
> Maybe owamp_bwctl is not to do with bandwidth. Must read doc. (Here's
> hoping the doc is detailed enough to discuss each service!)

owamp_bwctl.log is both for bw and latency tests
See: http://docs.perfsonar.net/manage_logs.html

> lcgnetmon says:
> Globally registered: No
> That should be yes - does a human change this or will lcgnetmon change it
> itself once data starts accumulating via its hopefully now correct iptables?
>
> lcgnetmon02 says: Globally registered: Unknown
> Same question - should be yes.......

What does /var/log/perfsonar/ls_registration_daemon.log say?

Regards,

--
Szymon Trocha

Poznań Supercomputing & Netw. Center ::: NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
Tel. +48 618582022 ::: http://noc.man.poznan.pl