| 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. cheers. -- Nathan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, Greg Banks |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, Greg Banks |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, Greg Banks |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, Greg Banks |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |