Skip to main content

coreos and etcd overhead

I finally managed to get my environment configured in GCE. Ultimately I want to look like:
This configuration is supposed to be pretty standard. The hardest part of the cloud-config was realizing that I was supposed to use $private_ip4 instead of $public_ip4. Many of the examples use the public IP and that is clearly wrong in EVERY case. Using the public IP might leave the system vulnerable to hackers.

Another note about etcd clusters is that he authors recommend that the etcd systems are left only to that function so that all system resources are left to that function. And when I created the workers I simply created etcd proxies. NOTE: if you omit the ?size=3 from he discovery URL then you have to be certain to include the proxy flag. If you include the ?size=3 then the 4th (or n+1) node will automatically become a proxy.

I now have a deployment of 5 machines.  Three in the etcd cluster and two workers. I happened to be looking at the CPU usage and I saw something strange:
This graph is the same on all 3 etcd servers. It appears that an idle etcd cluster member is running about 30%. (this machine is a GCE t1-micro)

Then I checked the workers. each of the 2 workers looked like:
Notice that the workers are at about 15%. That's clearly half the CPU of the etcd cluster member even though the virtual hardware was exactly the same.

On the one-hand I get it. The systems are busy, watching, and so on.  While the logging tells me some information it's possible that a lot more is going on. And the proxy nature of the worker is essentially sleeping soundly while the worker is quiet.

Overall, I suppose I'm not that surprised that the worker and etcd nodes perform differently, however, I'm not sure the micro server is running at a level I expected. Anyway, I'll continue watching during the burn-in. I also want to move my development into the structure in order to see what happens and how tooling might make it fun and profitable to execute this way.


Popular posts from this blog

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

UPDATE 2017-10-30: With gratitude the CoreOS team has provided updated information on their pricing, however, I stand by my conclusion that the effective cost is lower when you deploy monster machines. The cost per node of my 1 CPU Intel NUC is the same as a 96 CPU server when you get beyond 10 nodes. I'll also reiterate that while my pricing notes are not currently…

eGalax touch on default Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS

I have not had success with the touch drivers as yet.  The touch works and evtest also seems to report events, however, I have noticed that the button click is not working and no matter what I do xinput refuses to configure the buttons correctly.  When I downgraded to ubuntu 10.04 LTS everything sort of worked... there must have been something in the kermel as 10.04 was in the 2.6 kernel and 4.04 is in the 3.x branch.

One thing ... all of the documentation pointed to the wrong website or one in Taiwanese. I was finally able to locate the drivers again: (it would have been nice if they provided the install instructions in text rather than PDF)
Please open the document "EETI_eGTouch_Programming_Guide" under the Guide directory, and follow the Guidline to install driver.
download the appropriate versionunzip the fileread the programming manual And from that I'm distilling to the following: execute the answer all of the questio…

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).


I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…