pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] RFC - pmie "ruleset" extension

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] RFC - pmie "ruleset" extension
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <53A8FA02.4060605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53A8AA17.5070205@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53A8AB4E.9090003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0mtx7b5f7z.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <53A8D17C.8060808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53A8D578.90806@xxxxxxxxxx> <53A8FA02.4060605@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: jwuSNtVBA78VKB9Dr00WOlFL/+SnzQ==
Thread-topic: RFC - pmie "ruleset" extension

----- Original Message -----
> On 24/06/14 11:33, Mark Goodwin wrote:
> > ...
> > Not just messy, but rather inefficient and probably error prone too
> > because despite the repeated negation, the postfix.queues.* metrics
> > could change between the multiple rule evaluations (so more than one
> > rule could trigger). Actually - it depends on whether pmie does one
> > fetch per rule or one fetch per update cycle(?)
> 
> I think this is OK in the general case ... Frank's collapsing of the
> fetch groups

Hmm - which?  Are you thinking of the pmlogger changes in commits
e2301eb9, 0e68280 and finally a7f30720?  I don't think those would
come into play here (live mode pmie feeding events to Nagios)...?

 makes it much more likely that multiple rules with the same
> sampling interval and metrics in common will see consistent values
> across all of the rules.

(IOW, this may still need pmie changes - those changes were pmlogger-
specific)

cheers.

--
Nathan

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