[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing

To: Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing
From: nathans@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:21:53 +1000 (EST)
Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, systemtap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1780385660.592861283401180077.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
----- "Greg Banks" <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sure we could do it in pmproxy, but I don't see what it buys us other
> than not having to start one more daemon in the init script?

>From someone who is administering a number of sites (ie. me) that would
want to use both, it's a big win.  One less open port to register & worry
about, get to share all the code for dealing with multiplexing requests
already ... *shrug* ... why not?  Seems like a no-brainer choice - just
inject new code at pmproxy.c line 320 and 350 for web clients.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>