pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:54:08 -0400
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1830537766.31176499.1403488150780.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53A34A47.3060008@xxxxxxxxxx> <53A352FF.9090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7g4c9wcp.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1241706054.31171165.1403487302812.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140623014102.GI8337@xxxxxxxxxx> <1830537766.31176499.1403488150780.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

> PMDAs can export many metrics, some may be expensive others not.
> [...]  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.

I don't think anyone was suggesting an all-or-none sort of collection
behavior.  I only said on-demand, referring to the metrics actually
requested by a client (suffering PM_ERR_VALUE or PM_ERR_AGAIN or
PM_ERR_PMDANOTREADY or whatever for that first pmFetch).

- FChE

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