this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
22 points (92.3% liked)

Selfhosted

39980 readers
476 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
22
Proxmox Backup Server network traffic (programming.dev)
submitted 15 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hey all! I'm running Proxmox VE with the tteck PBS LXC and I can't figure out why there is this constant network traffic on PBS. I have backups set to run in the early morning and the screenshot is from when it should be idle. Any ideas? I know I'm not providing much info here so any clarifying questions are welcome since I don't know what would be important for troubleshooting. Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Hmmm - interesting. I hadn't bothered to check before now, but I'm seeing something similar on one of the two PBS CTs I run.

Comparing the output of netstat -lantop on both CTs, I can see that the one with more outbound traffic has more waiting connections from localhost on port 82, the port Proxmox Backup Servers provides its API over:

tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:51562         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (40.38/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:56342         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (29.92/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:44864         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (58.94/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:45028         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (11.88/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:44026         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (48.66/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:44852         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (58.80/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:59620         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (0.00/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:56374         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (30.98/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:51544         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (39.98/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:59642         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (0.00/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:45008         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (10.92/0/0)
tcp        0      0 127.0.0.1:45016         127.0.0.1:82            TIME_WAIT   -                    timewait (11.76/0/0)

I'm wondering if the graph is pulling aggregated network data, including the loopback interface. If so, and it's all just port 82 stuff on 127.0.0.1, then it's probably nothing to worry about.

Edit: found this forum post that seems to indicate it's aggregating all the byte values from /proc/dev/net, so this is probably nothing to worry about if your netstat output, like mine, only shows API conections to/from 127.0.0.1 on port 82.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago

Yep, I think you're spot on! Glad I asked, I don't think I would've ever thought of that. Thanks!