perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

["Masshardt, Eric" <>]

Is system-config-network still present in EL 9? Sounds like I need to run through a “Server with no GUI” install of Rocky 9 somewhere to check things out.

 

One of our issues is movement of large amounts of data through our network. We wanted to see if PerfSONAR can assist in (1) on-going baseline of network performance between a number of key/different locations (2) help in troubleshooting and identifying the sources when we are experiencing issues.

 

We have combinations of workstations and servers that consolidate data to be transferred and, if possible/reasonable, would like to utilize these for PerfSONAR as well. If we need to halt transfers to be able to effectively test, we could likely do that. These nodes currently have 10GbE (ports of which still seem to be a precious commodity) while most systems do not.

 

Sounds like hardware requirements aren’t overbearing for dedicated test nodes. Initial testing on the systems we have, even if non-optimal, will hopefully give insight into the utility and usefulness of PerfSONAR and then we could go from there. With that in mind, KVM based virtual would be better than Docker based install of PerfSONAR?

 

Thanks,

 

Eric

 

From: Mark Feit <>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 9:16 AM
To: Masshardt, Eric <>, <>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Questions around Network Manager, EL 8/9

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

Masshardt, Eric writes:

 

I saw this note in the EL installation section:

Installing a graphical/desktop environment with perfSONAR is not supported. These environments generally come with a Network Manager that conflicts with the way that perfSONAR is tuning the network interface parameters. We recommend doing only server grade OS installs.

 

I’m curious about this and would love to get additional details. Since the underlying OS is the same, just with different environments layered on (in the case of Workstation), how does that affect/conflict? Is it just a matter of the automated tuning will not work properly? If so, could we just use/do manual tuning instead?

 

Layers would have been the right way to do it, but NetworkManager is a completely different beast than System-config-network and each steps on the other’s toes.  I don’t think any of us have put much thought into how installing perfSONAR on a NetworkManager system would fall out.  We’re sort of heeding our chemistry prof’s advice about not dumping sodium into water.  :-) 

 

Also, if we’re unable to meet this requirement (no Desktop environment won’t fly for workstations), what’s the next best option, a Docker install?

 

Can you tell me a bit more about the use case for installing on desktops?   The usual application puts perfSONAR on a dedicated system co-located with network equipment so the system is measuring the behavior of the network without the results being influenced by other workloads on the system.

 

If you’re just out for a test drive, the path of least resistance would be spinning up a VM or two and installing there.  The only caveat is that VMs don’t do well doing high-bandwidth throughput measurements because those environments tend to be I/O-constrained.  The only desktop-like thing you need to get at it (if you’re installing the toolkit bundle) is a web browser, which doesn’t need to be on the same system.  For the testpoint bundle, all you need is SSH.

 

Hope that answers your questions.

 

--Mark