| To: | markgw@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: pmParseMetricSpec(3) problems |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 01 May 2008 10:07:51 +1000 |
| Cc: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4818FE5B.5000105@xxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Aconex |
| References: | <40997.192.168.3.1.1209514118.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1209590407.2870.19.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54508.192.168.3.1.1209591565.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4818FE5B.5000105@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 09:18 +1000, Mark Goodwin wrote: > > nscott@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > But, my issue was local contexts (not pmcd) - I don't see any way for a > > pmMetricSpec to specify this third kind of context today, and not sure > > what the best approach to take to implement that is. > > perhaps a reserved word, e.g. LOCALCONTEXT: That's a valid hostname though. Ken's suggestion of a single "@" character sounds good to me - no hostname will have that, and its unambiguous even with the extended pmproxy syntax. > Do we also want to try and entertain a chain of proxies, separated by ':'? > I think you mentioned you have no need for more than one, and our > need has gone away entirely now. That concept is still feasible - with multiple "@"s though, not multiple ":"s. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: pmParseMetricSpec(3) problems, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pcp updates, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pmParseMetricSpec(3) problems, Mark Goodwin |
| Next by Thread: | Re: pmParseMetricSpec(3) problems, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |