Sorry, somehow I took this off-list.
Resending to add those lists back.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Beekhof <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Matahari] Forw: matahari: comparing Sigar and PCP for
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I believe this represents a mapping between the Sigar stuff used by
> matahari, and what's available from equivalent local PCP sources. The
> PCP API, being a little more generic, is a little more wordy than
> Sigar, but not too much so. The only nontrivial amount of work here
> appears to be the network-interface metadata, which is rather richer
> in Sigar than in PCP.
> The design of PCP makes it straightforward to extend it with data
> sources like this via out-of-tree PMDAs, so no change of the PCP core
> code is required to add the missing data. OTOH the PCP people are
> friendly to contributions, so merging such things into the master tree
> would probably not be a big deal.
> Thanks for reading through all this. Any questions?
First up, thankyou for the very detailed analysis.
The challenge, from my perspective, is not so much "does PCP check the
same boxes as Sigar" but more "Is there something compelling in PCP
that makes the migration work worthwhile".
To date, I'd have to say no.
That said, and in contrast to what you're saying about PCP, Sigar
upstream is not exactly responsive.
So depending on what level of frustration we reach trying to get out
windows device name patch merged, this may well provide sufficient
justification to switch.
On that topic, how does PCP represent/name network interfaces on Windows?
Sigar maps everything to the ethX naming standard - which is utterly
useless as windows exposes two virtual devices for every real one
(that deal with routing or something). So far we're having trouble
getting many replies out of the Sigar people.