| To: | Martins Innus <minnus@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:27:47 -0500 (EST) |
| Cc: | pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <54622BF4.4080806@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <545D2CFA.1050600@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1477043892.10880496.1415600819766.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54622BF4.4080806@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | 3LhcAha3Es5NkDV+gmr9jrEY7kUMOA== |
| Thread-topic: | Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics |
----- Original Message ----- > [...] > I think I'm ok with fixing everything but this. I don't understand why Great, thanks! > it is failing. I put some debugging into the indom.c test and all > queries into the proc pmda, even non-dynamic elements, return bogus > information from pmLookupName: > [...] > My guess is that I'm not building the tree properly, but I'm not sure > what is missing. Odd - I'll look into it. It may be something to do with the ordering of PDUs (pmval and most tools will ask for pmdesc and other things - names/ pmids, etc before asking for instances) - IIRC this test program asks in a different order, or only for instance PDUs, or something like that. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics, Martins Innus |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics, Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics, Martins Innus |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic Proc PMDA metrics, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |