| To: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:49:10 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20140623014102.GI8337@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <53A34A47.3060008@xxxxxxxxxx> <53A352FF.9090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7g4c9wcp.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1241706054.31171165.1403487302812.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140623014102.GI8337@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | KHF4bbLpuW9StEA986tq9SeD2nmy0g== |
| Thread-topic: | PCP Network Latency PMDA |
----- Original Message ----- > > A client simply showing interest in the metrics from a PMDA is not enough > > information to know whether expensive collection should be enabled or not > > though. > > Why not? > PMDAs can export many metrics, some may be expensive others not. Take Wills example of network.* for example, which would be handled by the Linux kernel PMDA. It exports many other metrics, and enabling every single expensive metric that might make sense for it to export, simply because pminfo connected and asked for a value (of an unrelated metric) would not be sensible. Nor should it become a requirement that any PMDA that has expensive metrics, can only export those expensive metrics and not inexpensive ones. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA, Frank Ch. Eigler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |