pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] linux pmda badness

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] linux pmda badness
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 20:35:16 -0500 (EST)
Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <54BEFF0D.4020902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <54B444A8.8070005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <331211176.14228104.1421801734447.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54BEFF0D.4020902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 2ur32ICCEanxvq/HvZuVZd4tz+jD5A==
Thread-topic: linux pmda badness

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> Without some extra semantics from somewhere, even this is doomed ... on my
> local machine there are duplicates in the help text ...
> 

Yeah, gets more complicated too - the contents of /proc/interrupts differs
between each architecture and that final column is arbitrary text.  I think
the current strategy of using the first column in the metric name is a good
one, if we can just make the item numbering persist.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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