pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] [PATCH] 389 DS PCP PMDA

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] [PATCH] 389 DS PCP PMDA
From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:53:06 +0300
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1651635410.53660103.1411447552098.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <541C1297.6050009@xxxxxxxxxx> <1651635410.53660103.1411447552098.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: myllynen@xxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
Hi,

On 2014-09-23 07:45, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
>> The only real concern I have at the moment is the need for the
>> query_interval/timestamp stuff which is pretty ugly but when doing e.g.
>> "pminfo -dfmtT ds389.userroot" two successive queries are done for some
>> reason, I think we should avoid such needless LDAP queries.
> 
> You may find this is as a result of the query "batchsize" concept within
> pminfo - see the -b,--batch option.  If this is indeed the cause, you'll
> find the fetch routines are passed sets of metrics, & the PMDA can respond
> to just those requested (as this one does, to an extent, with use of the
> PMID cluster field).  Specific sub-trees can be queried via ds389.userroot
> or ds389.cn and you should see only those LDAP queries fire off.

thanks, the batchsize explains why it happens only with ds389.userroot
not with ds389.dn (the former has > 20 metrics, the latter < 20). With
-b 100 only one query. So I think the query interval logic still has its
place.

> Yes, we'll definitely want to be doing that  :)  & in an automated fashion.
> A test just like the memcached test qa/835 will be needed - any interest in
> tackling that to finish this PMDA off?

I'll try to take a look at it in the coming days but please feel finish
it off before that :)

> I found the perl-LDAP package is also needed - the Install script could be
> tweaked to check for this.  We'll also need to stitch this into the build
> via a new makefile, and assign a domain number.  I'll take on these last
> few, but would love some testing help if you can.  If not, I'll come back
> to that as soon as I can too.  For now, I've merged in your initial patch
> so that we have a common starting point (not built/installed yet though).

Looks good, thanks a lot.

Cheers,

-- 
Marko Myllynen

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