[ZBX-18958] huge network sessions for proxy Created: 2021 Feb 02 Updated: 2021 Feb 22 Resolved: 2021 Feb 22 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | ZABBIX BUGS AND ISSUES |
| Component/s: | Server (S) |
| Affects Version/s: | 5.0.8 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Problem report | Priority: | Trivial |
| Reporter: | tbsky | Assignee: | Arturs Lontons |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Environment: |
RHEL7 RHEL8 |
||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Description |
|
Hi: I was suffered by huge network sessions caused by passive proxy. with tcpdump, we can see zabbix-server create a new tcp port every second for every passive proxy. I checked the source code, and found that by design zabbix-server use three parameters to judge the frequency for contacting passive proxy. we can change "ProxyConfigFrequency" and "ProxyDataFrequency". but by default the third parameter "ZBX_TASK_UPDATE_FREQUENCY" is one second and can not be changed. the "ZBX_TASK_UPDATE_FREQUENCY" parameter is only used for proxy, but I don't why it is necessary. I replaced the two "ZBX_TASK_UPDATE_FREQUENCY" with "CONFIG_PROXYDATA_FREQUENCY" at "src/libs/zbxdbcache/dbconfig.c",then 90% of sessions gone with parameter "ProxyDataFrequency=60". I don't know what's the side effect although it seems working fine. I hope that zabbix proxy network design can be fixed. it is unpleasant for firewall to saw huge useless connections.
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Glebs Ivanovskis [ 2021 Feb 06 ] |
|
Duplicates ZBXNEXT-4998. |
| Comment by tbsky [ 2021 Feb 06 ] |
|
Hi: check ZBXNEXT-4998 and the 1 second schedule for active proxy is for catching remote command in time. but with passive proxy this is unnecessary since zabbix server can contact the passive proxy any time when it needs. so the problem can be fixed with passive proxy first? |
| Comment by Arturs Lontons [ 2021 Feb 22 ] |
|
Most likely this can be improved for passive proxies first, since the logic in that case would be more simple. Let's move the discussion to ZBXNEXT-4998 since this is indeed a duplicate of that Feature request. |