pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: filtered metrics

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: filtered metrics
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:27 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <y0m38oawfv5.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
References: <1717961238.2089908.1380100281235.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mvc1g5tyg.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1551478303.2549744.1381116552518.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mwqlpyx0x.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1405249421.4047171.1381288021302.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0m38oawfv5.fsf@xxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AnzpB707R4KUf8JrInEpJflXuR/bNg==
Thread-topic: filtered metrics

----- Original Message -----
> 
> nathans wrote:
> 
> > [...]  Thinking system wide filters like "when looking at
> > per-process metrics, this system is expected to have N million
> > insts, so force a system wide filter for all access to per-process
> > metrics via a specified cgroup". [...]
> 
> Would this be a administrative preference for security/load-limiting?

Hmm, more like "for all processes that should appear in daily pcp logs
or appear in a pmatop listing, they need to belong to cgroup X" - and,
mechanisms for getting arbitrary processes in/out of said cgroup X are
made readily accessible for people doing analysis.

> If so, it's bound to be ineffective.

For some people it will be ineffective, for others they wont care (but
sure will when their root disk fills because we auto-logged too much),
and for yet others it will be highly effective.  This is the same sort
of approach the existing perf_event cgroup uses, FWIW, & I imagine for
some its highly useful, others wont care and yet others are happy with
system-wide perf events.  Its better to have the option than no way to
deal with this class of problem though.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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