did you install some vmware software / drivers on the guest? On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:39:30 +0200 Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > yes and because you have NO CHANCE to get support > for fedora from VMware the question is if this > trigger can not be corrected somewhere in the guest > > that "16777216.00 TiB" is impossible in some > seconds is clear - so my question was not > to discuss where the problem is, my question > is if it can be pragmatic fixed somewhere > > Am 05.06.2011 22:32, schrieb Lars Schotte: > > well, the guest operating system is measuring traffic that doesnt > > exist. that is a good start. > > > > now, normally, operating systems do NOT measure traffic that doesnt > > exist, so there must be something wrong with the network card > > driver. > > > > guess what.. it is not ... because vmware emulates a network card > > which most operating systems have a (good) driver of. so we can > > rule out an operating system or a network device driver error. > > > > so we should ask vmware why they implemented crazy transfer rate > > emulation on that virtualized device while doing snapshots. which of > > course have nothing to do with the fact that there is a network > > device emulated or used. so for me it looks like vmware did brake it > > intentionally. > > > > why they shoud do sth like that? because they are ... "different". > > > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:30:21 +0200 > > Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Am 05.06.2011 21:19, schrieb Lars Schotte: > >>> thats exactly what vmware needs to comprehend. > >> > >> WHAT should VMware do if the guest is measuring traffic which does > >> not exist? > >> > >>> you dont need to tell me that ;-) > >> > >> "so you have to somehow convince vmware not to take snapshots > >> through that virtualized ethernet devices" and your ideas solve > >> this on the pysical layer or about "routing on the host" showing > >> me that you have never worked with a ESXi-Cluster > >> > >> i try to solve a little problem IN THE GUEST and not to > >> change the whole infrastructure because this would change > >> exactly nothing on the "vnstat"-problem > >> > >>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:55:53 +0200 > >>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> sorry to say but you have no idea what about i am speaking > >>>> snapshots are not taken "through that virtualized ethernet > >>>> device" > >>>> > >>>> the guest is freezed for a short time to take a consistent > >>>> state of his drives which are copied on the host, the copy > >>>> has NOTHING to to with the ethernet device in the guest > >>>> > >>>> Am 05.06.2011 20:50, schrieb Lars Schotte: > >>>>> so you have to somehow convince vmware not to take snapshots > >>>>> through that virtualized ethernet devices. maybe an extra > >>>>> ethernet device would help. the first one left for that > >>>>> snapshots fiction and second for networking. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:34:49 +0200 > >>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:55, schrieb Lars Schotte: > >>>>>>> i definitely wouldnt come to that idea to monitor guests on > >>>>>>> guests w/ vnstat because even if it had worked perfectly, its > >>>>>>> still just a fictional ethernet device. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> what is there fictional? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> it is a ethernet-device with all features of a ethernet-device > >>>>>> ond the guest does know nothing about virtualization > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> maybe a vmware monitoring software would be > >>>>>>> more precise or an alternative would be to bind each to a > >>>>>>> virtual network card and do the monitoring on the host > >>>>>>> measuring only the output data and then routing all this > >>>>>>> devices out, thereby using the host as a router, which is of > >>>>>>> course a more complicated setup and i am not even sure if it > >>>>>>> would work, but thats the way i would try to build it up. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> jesus for what reason? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> the host is not a router, the host is a virtual switch > >>>>>> and yes you have monitoring on the vCenter-Server but not > >>>>>> in a console like output and not with exactly numbers > >>>>>> > >>>>>> this are two different worlds and i see no reason why > >>>>>> vnstat would not work on the guest because it does > >>>>>> > >>>>>> only while snapshots are taken / removed there are some > >>>>>> short untrue peaks which would be easaliy could filtered > >>>>>> in the guest-software only by their hughe numbers which are > >>>>>> clearly impossible and the problem is that this does not > >>>>>> happen and so if some measuring says "20 GB in two seconds" > >>>>>> all averages are destroyed > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:20:16 +0200 > >>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> yes! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> works perfectly, only after dealing with snapshots there are > >>>>>>>> this horrible peaks on 64bit guests > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:18, schrieb Lars Schotte: > >>>>>>>>> w8, so you are saying that you run vnstat on the guests? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:16:44 +0200 > >>>>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Am 05.06.2011 16:12, schrieb Lars Schotte: > >>>>>>>>>>> is ifconfig showing this huge numberg at that time as > >>>>>>>>>>> well? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> not currently, but i have seen such outputs in "ifconfig" > >>>>>>>>>> too > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> do you have a 64bit OS or 32bit? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> seems only affect x86_64 guests > >>>>>>>>>> good input - the voip-machine is the only 32bit and > >>>>>>>>>> does not show this > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> did you try to report it to vmware as well? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> they will anser "fedora is not official supported and > >>>>>>>>>> open-vm-tools vom rpmfusion too" on ESXi :-( > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 16:06:48 +0200 > >>>>>>>>>>> Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> has anybody an idea for which package i should file a > >>>>>>>>>>>> bugreport for this? i guess "vnstat" is only the postman > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> every night from friday to saturday from our > >>>>>>>>>>>> fedora-vmware-guests is made a snapshot by "VMware Data > >>>>>>>>>>>> Recovery" to take a consistent backup and while deleting > >>>>>>>>>>>> the snapshot something triggers horrible wrong values to > >>>>>>>>>>>> "vnstat" which makes monthly summary useless > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> see below :-( > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> eth0 / daily > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> day rx | tx | total > >>>>>>>>>>>> | avg. rate > >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/07/11 16777216.00 TiB | 5.56 GiB | 16777216.00 > >>>>>>>>>>>> TiB | 1668.00 Tbit/s 05/08/11 855.27 MiB | 4.24 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 5.07 GiB | 492.63 kbit/s 05/09/11 2.35 GiB > >>>>>>>>>>>> | 72.14 GiB | 74.49 GiB | 7.23 Mbit/s 05/10/11 > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.47 GiB | 11.41 GiB | 12.88 GiB | 1.25 Mbit/s > >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/11/11 1.11 GiB | 6.19 GiB | 7.30 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 708.76 kbit/s 05/12/11 1.17 GiB | 5.82 GiB | 6.99 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 678.38 kbit/s 05/13/11 1.12 GiB | 6.50 GiB > >>>>>>>>>>>> | 7.62 GiB | 739.88 kbit/s 05/14/11 33554432.00 TiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4.10 GiB | 33554432.00 TiB | 3336.00 Tbit/s 05/15/11 > >>>>>>>>>>>> 778.85 MiB | 4.45 GiB | 5.21 GiB | 505.87 kbit/s > >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/16/11 1.30 GiB | 7.37 GiB | 8.67 GiB | 842.06 > >>>>>>>>>>>> kbit/s 05/17/11 1.38 GiB | 8.18 GiB | 9.56 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 928.20 kbit/s 05/18/11 1.21 GiB | 6.83 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 8.04 GiB | 780.32 kbit/s 05/19/11 1.03 GiB | 5.68 GiB > >>>>>>>>>>>> | 6.72 GiB | 652.10 kbit/s 05/20/11 1.11 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 5.18 GiB | 6.29 GiB | 610.67 kbit/s 05/21/11 > >>>>>>>>>>>> 16777216.00 TiB | 3.97 GiB | 16777216.00 TiB | 1668.00 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tbit/s 05/22/11 902.15 MiB | 6.74 GiB | 7.62 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 739.58 kbit/s 05/23/11 1.28 GiB | 16.56 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 17.84 GiB | 1.73 Mbit/s 05/24/11 1.60 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 11.42 GiB | 13.02 GiB | 1.26 Mbit/s 05/25/11 1.47 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 6.65 GiB | 8.12 GiB | 788.78 kbit/s > >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/26/11 1.23 GiB | 7.40 GiB | 8.64 GiB | 838.46 > >>>>>>>>>>>> kbit/s 05/27/11 1.43 GiB | 6.75 GiB | 8.19 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 794.70 kbit/s 05/28/11 33554432.00 TiB | 5.44 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 33554432.00 TiB | 3336.00 Tbit/s 05/29/11 855.65 > >>>>>>>>>>>> MiB | 4.89 GiB | 5.72 GiB | 555.47 kbit/s > >>>>>>>>>>>> 05/30/11 1.43 GiB | 9.20 GiB | 10.62 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.03 Mbit/s 05/31/11 1.77 GiB | 9.52 GiB | 11.29 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 1.10 Mbit/s 06/01/11 1.51 GiB | 9.43 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 10.94 GiB | 1.06 Mbit/s 06/02/11 906.48 MiB | 5.90 > >>>>>>>>>>>> GiB | 6.79 GiB | 658.85 kbit/s 06/03/11 2.36 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 9.40 GiB | 11.77 GiB | 1.14 Mbit/s 06/04/11 > >>>>>>>>>>>> 16777216.00 TiB | 5.15 GiB | 16777216.00 TiB | 1668.00 > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tbit/s 06/05/11 585.88 MiB | 2.30 GiB | 2.87 GiB | > >>>>>>>>>>>> 417.64 kbit/s > >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> estimated 877 MiB | 3.44 GiB | 4.30 GiB > >>>>>>>>>>>> | > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > -- Lars Schotte @ Hana (F14)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
