pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC] pcp python patch

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC] pcp python patch
From: fche@xxxxxxxxxx (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:31:54 -0500
Cc: David Smith <dsmith@xxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1332365833.3983034.1416785912055.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> (Nathan Scott's message of "Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:38:32 -0500 (EST)")
References: <54512E80.9090302@xxxxxxxxxx> <54667179.1060605@xxxxxxxxxx> <370186244.15487866.1416205739744.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546A44F0.1070001@xxxxxxxxxx> <207038253.507858.1416264783839.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546A7EDD.9000009@xxxxxxxxxx> <134603578.1719924.1416389380267.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <546FB61C.2090103@xxxxxxxxxx> <1332365833.3983034.1416785912055.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
nathans wrote:

> [...]  Also, please consider reclaiming the systemtap domain number
> for the new PMDA

No objection here, but is there something special about this old perl
pmda that makes this widespread cautionary verbiage moot?

       -d   It is absolutely crucial that the performance metrics domain num-
            ber  specified  here  is  unique and consistent.  That is, domain
            should be different for every PMDA on the one host, and the  same
            domain number should be used for the same PMDA on all hosts.

(In this case, 88 happens to be hard-coded into the pmdasystemtap.pl instead
of being supplied as a command line option.)


> if this is is going to become the preferred stap interface for folks
> to use [...]

(If we do it right, it will be useful far beyond stap.)

- FChE

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