pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] braindump on unified-context / live-logging

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] braindump on unified-context / live-logging
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 23:23:38 +1100
Cc: pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140108013956.GG15448@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140108013956.GG15448@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 20:39:56 -0500, Frank Ch Eigler wrote:

 fche> 1.1) pmlogger needs to learn to write its output with what IIRC kenj
 fche> has referred to as "semantic units", ie., proper use sequencing of
 fche> write(2), fdatasync(), to put interdependent data on disk correctly.

This was the biggest bugbear of NAS Manager (for those who remember)
which tried to provide historical and live data using archives as main
source of information. I'd imagine this could be solved given more
then .33 of engineer available to work on PCP. Still, the nightmares
are still with me and I wasn't the .33 at the time.

 fche> 2.1) A new server needs to be written, which would monitor some local
 fche> archive files, and serve an extended pcp wire protocol for it (one
 fche> that includes archive-like pmSetMode operations).  It would advertise
 fche> the pcp hostname (or pmmgr-style hostid) to the network, so clients
 fche> can find the right host data (probably one tcp port per archive, or
 fche> else multiplexed over a single tcp port and identifying the host
 fche> during startup negotiation).  The clients could keep using
 fche> PM_CONTEXT_HOST but permit PM_MODE_BACK etc. to forward -S/-T times -
 fche> ie. no requirement for a new PM_CONTEXT_UNIFIED.

What would happen if pcp client is using PM_CONTEXT_HOST with new
protocol? Will it be banned or will it be silently dropped back to
current "live" sematic?

max

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