You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have a physical HPE ProLiant DL560 Gen10 server with two Xeon Gold 6148 processors (40 physical and 80 logical cores in total). 2 CSV volumes with a capacity of more than 20TiB are connected to the server
The plugin on this server tells us the following:
Invoke-IcingaCheckHyperVOverCommitment -Verbosity 2
[OK] Hyper-V Overcommitment: 3 Ok
\_ [OK] CPUOverCommit
\_ [OK] CUST01-VM01 Used Cores: 46c
\_ [OK] CUST01-VM01 Used Percent: 130.0%
\_ [OK] RAMOverCommit
\_ [OK] CUST01-VM01 Used Bytes: 79GiB
\_ [OK] CUST01-VM01 Used Percent: 0%
\_ [OK] StorageOverCommit
\_ [OK] Partition C: Overcommitment
\_ [OK] C: Used Bytes: 1.06TiB
\_ [OK] C: Used Percent: 0%
|
'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedcores'=46c;;;0;20
'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedpercent'=130%;;;0;100
'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedbytes'=84825600000B;;;0;549394700000
'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedpercent'=0%;;;0;100
'c::ifw_hypervovercommitstorage::usedpercent'=0%;;;0;100
'c::ifw_hypervovercommitstorage::usedbytes'=1168231000000B;;;0;10995100000000
The 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedcores' metric (46 cores) is calculated correctly, but there is a problem.
This metric has the wrong max value (20 instead of 80). Therefore, we see the percentage value in the 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedpercent' metric as 130%, but this is an incorrect value.
The real data is as follows: In total there are 80 cores on the server (100%), 46 cores are used. Therefore, the 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedpercent' metric should be equal to 0%.
There are no questions regarding the metrics 'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedbytes' and 'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedpercent'. Everything here is calculated correctly.
The metric 'c::ifw_hypervovercommitstorage::usedbytes' has 10995100000000 as its value, i.e. 10TiB
But in reality this is not true. The server has 2 CSV disk volumes with a capacity of more than 20TiB:
In general, it is worth noting that calculating the storage overcommit in a cluster where virtual machines are hosted on CSV volumes needs to be done in a special way. We need to calculate the sum of the disk sizes of all virtual machines on each CSV volume and compare it with the size of this volume.
If anything, I'm ready to test the new plugin logic. Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello.
We have a physical HPE ProLiant DL560 Gen10 server with two Xeon Gold 6148 processors (40 physical and 80 logical cores in total). 2 CSV volumes with a capacity of more than 20TiB are connected to the server
The plugin on this server tells us the following:
The 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedcores' metric (46 cores) is calculated correctly, but there is a problem.
This metric has the wrong max value (20 instead of 80). Therefore, we see the percentage value in the 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedpercent' metric as 130%, but this is an incorrect value.
The real data is as follows: In total there are 80 cores on the server (100%), 46 cores are used. Therefore, the 'cores::ifw_hypervovercommitcores::usedpercent' metric should be equal to 0%.
There are no questions regarding the metrics 'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedbytes' and 'memory::ifw_hypervovercommitmemory::usedpercent'. Everything here is calculated correctly.
The metric 'c::ifw_hypervovercommitstorage::usedbytes' has 10995100000000 as its value, i.e. 10TiB
But in reality this is not true. The server has 2 CSV disk volumes with a capacity of more than 20TiB:
or in bytes:
In general, it is worth noting that calculating the storage overcommit in a cluster where virtual machines are hosted on CSV volumes needs to be done in a special way. We need to calculate the sum of the disk sizes of all virtual machines on each CSV volume and compare it with the size of this volume.
If anything, I'm ready to test the new plugin logic. Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: