pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Compressing .meta file also?

To: "'Nathan Scott'" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Compressing .meta file also?
From: "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:40:51 +1000
Cc: "'PCP'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1478926031.47431716.1463099651741.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <666210587.47429433.1463097541256.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <1478926031.47431716.1463099651741.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQEU8L2dCIctrv70c8yrbkcpUCJVb6EwNpPw
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Scott [mailto:nathans@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, 13 May 2016 10:34 AM
> To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Compressing .meta file also?
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> I've seen two cases this week of people starting to get sufficiently
> large archive .meta files that compression has been requested, or at
> least considered (both times from the well known proc-indom issue).
> 
> As a stop-gap, is there any reason we'd not be able to auto-compress/
> auto-expand the .meta files as well?  Not a long-term fix but has the
> nice quality of being relatively backward-compatible ("just" a libpcp
> change to add support, and some pmlogger_daily shell code I guess).

Can't see any issue with this.

Of course changing to a delta approach for indoms would have a bigger payback, 
but that's a much bigger code change that no one is signed up for.

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