| 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: 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?).[...] 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. Test as well as good and bad files attached. Martins
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Some illumos build fixes for pmwebd, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Regression in qa/628, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic metric rework, Nathan Scott |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] Dynamic metric rework, Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |