pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

[Bug 936] pmie falling operator does not insert instance (%i) and value

To: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Bug 936] pmie falling operator does not insert instance (%i) and value (%v)
From: bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 17:20:25 -0600
Auto-submitted: auto-generated
In-reply-to: <bug-936-835@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-936-835@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/bugzilla/>
http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=936


Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |nathans@xxxxxxxxxx




--- Comment #1 from Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>  2012-12-08 17:20:23 CST 
---
I'll take a look during the week, unless someone else does first.  However, you
might find use of the rising/falling keywords to be superflous (and perhaps
overly simplistic - I've personally never used them).  The pmie(1) man page
gives an example showing explicit use of multiple samples (rather than the
implicit use that rising/falling gives) - i.e.

            $hour >= 9 && $hour <= 17 &&
            some_inst (
              75 %_sample (
                disk.dev.total @0..3 > 60 count/sec
              )
            ) -> print "disk %i busy ";

For reference, @0 is the most recent sample, @1 the sample prior, and so on (so
the above rule evaluates four samples worth of the disk.dev.total values).

It may be that rising/falling ends up with the value for that part of the rule
becoming boolean, in which case you'll want something like the above anyway.

cheers.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

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