pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint

To: Lukas Berk <lberk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] [RFC] Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:02:39 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <877ft59dmo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <87bnk0wzn5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx> <877ft59dmo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: v6HO/R3BHNNMC7HAHXG/onUjb/lYjw==
Thread-topic: Minimizing Installation Size for Reduced PCP Footprint
Hi Lukas,

----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> I've also moved the python user tools under src/pcp, and created their
> own sub package: pcp-system-tools.  This was required, as now both
> python and perl bindings are no longer installed by default (in an
> attempt to lower the default footprint).  As with the pmdas, this
> package will be dragged in on existing releases.  I've also added
> symlinks to their previous commands, so no change is required when
> invoking the tools.

Nice.

> Overall these changes have reduced the default footprint from 51mb to
> 7mb.

Good stuff, Mark will be happy.  :)

> Any comments are appreciated.  Frank has already pointed out on IRC, a
> pcp-full-collection style package, which requires and installs the full
> pcp set of packages would be nice to have. Especially as a convienience
> to the user.  I think this is a great idea, and unless there is strong
> opposition to it, will be adding that asap.

The documentation refers to concepts of 'pcp collector' and 'pcp monitor'
installations (which also reflects the common deployment model) - it would
make alot of sense to have two packages reflect that, if possible, rather
than one mega package.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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