Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inverted CPU graphs. Same node, different interface. #224

Closed
Stitch10925 opened this issue Oct 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed

Inverted CPU graphs. Same node, different interface. #224

Stitch10925 opened this issue Oct 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Stitch10925
Copy link

Hey Henry,

So this is an interesting one. I have a Docker swarm setup with separate management and data interfaces, this means that each of my Docker nodes has 2 network adapters.

All of my nodes has an agent running on it. For testing purposes I added the IP of both interfaces to Beszel, All of the logging seems to be the same for both interfaces, as expected, since it's the same machine. However, the CPU graphs seem to be inverted:

image

vs:

image

@henrygd
Copy link
Owner

henrygd commented Oct 26, 2024

Are these using the same agent instance?

Stats like RAM and disk usage will be the same because those are just moment-in-time snapshots. But for CPU we check the total usage since the last query and divide it by the time between the checks. That gives us the average usage over the intervening time.

If you have multiple systems hooked up to the same agent instance, things can go wonky because different systems are resetting the time periods. And you may get some errors related to memory safety.

If you want multiple users to have access to the same system, share it through PocketBase rather than recreating it.

Try running running a second agent on a different port and setting the other system to use that agent instead. Then both should match very closely.

@henrygd henrygd added the question Further information is requested label Oct 26, 2024
@henrygd
Copy link
Owner

henrygd commented Jan 31, 2025

Closing but I'll reopen if you still have questions about this.

@henrygd henrygd closed this as completed Jan 31, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants