pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Dynamic metric rework

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Dynamic metric rework
From: Martins Innus <minnus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:51:45 -0500
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1194215403.14908758.1418289588303.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5481E4D7.8050700@xxxxxxxxxxx> <991616924.12928901.1418084187235.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54876B8F.2050106@xxxxxxxxxxx> <428025601.13619915.1418163615228.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <548897F5.4010905@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1194215403.14908758.1418289588303.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
Nathan,


On 12/11/14 4:19 AM, Nathan Scott wrote:
[...]
My guess is that there should be some sort of low level qa test for
this, but I'm not sure what it would do.
Fine-grained control over the PDUs sent toward a PMDA can be achieved
with dbpmda if you're interested in taking an approach like that?  See
the work Lukas has been doing over in qa/967 for an example.

OK, how about something like this? The first test is the actual failure, the next 2 are contrived, the last is making sure there are some dynamic metrics generated. I have made the assumption that there should be at least 3 interrupts on any platform that the linux pmda runs on. If it ends up failing somewhere, will need to be made conditional on something ( architecture?).

Test as well as good and bad files attached.

Martins

Attachment: 955
Description: Text document

Attachment: 955.out
Description: Text document

Attachment: 955.out.bad
Description: Text document

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