Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 15, 2020. It is now read-only.

Too many IPs result in artificial loss docs? #12

Open
drewr opened this issue Apr 6, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

Too many IPs result in artificial loss docs? #12

drewr opened this issue Apr 6, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@drewr
Copy link

drewr commented Apr 6, 2016

I was using a config that included www.facebook.com and www.google.com, along with a us-east-1 elb dualstack hostname, and all of this expands to quite an IP list once you figure in IPv6. I left that running for a day (with 12 sec interval), and noticed a ton of loss docs. Right after I would notice a loss doc, I would try manually pinging the address and it would be very responsive. So my graphs weren't giving me a real picture of connectivity.

Reducing the configuration to a simple set of about 5-6 IPs has eliminated the loss docs, including from ones that were reporting consistently before. The top graph is a median agg over the RTT values, the bottom is a count agg over loss: true. With the simpler config, they go to absent.

image

New config:

input:
  period: 12
  privileged: true
  useipv4: true
  useipv6: true
  targets:
    comcast:
      - xe-5-2-0-sur01.blairblvd.tn.nash.comcast.net
    comcast dns:
      - cdns01.comcast.net
    google dns:
      - google-public-dns-a.google.com
    level3:
      - 4.2.2.2
@joshuar
Copy link
Owner

joshuar commented Apr 7, 2016

Possibly related to this: tatsushid/go-fastping#14

So right, now, it's likely the losses are false positives a lot of the time with a lot of hosts and small periods. I might need to disable loss counts until the above gets fixed upstream, or look into it myself.

@joshuar
Copy link
Owner

joshuar commented Sep 21, 2016

Hey @drewr I've been working on a re-write of pingbeat that removes the dep on go-fastping. My rough preliminary testing is proving positive results and I'm hoping this artificial loss issue is now resolved. If you get a chance, try out the 1.0-beat1 release and see if that removes the issue?

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants