pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] iostat2pcp broken for iostat in RHEL/fedora

To: Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] iostat2pcp broken for iostat in RHEL/fedora
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 21:35:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Laurence Oberman <loberman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bud Brown <bubrown@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5434DC73.4080400@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5434DC73.4080400@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: bR4n1/iB2ef1sx3GpZKOkhcPCY+5Xw==
Thread-topic: iostat2pcp broken for iostat in RHEL/fedora
Hi guys,

----- Original Message -----
> iostat2pcp doesn't seem to like the iostat output on various
> RHEL and Fedora flavours - this was reported by Bud Brown here
> at Red Hat (cc:'d). Any idea what's wrong anyone?

Yep...

> qa/373 works but it's using output captured from some other iostat
> version, not the locally installed iostat - the latter would be
> a better test no doubt ...
> 
> $ iostat -t -x 2 10 > iostat.10
> $ iostat2pcp iostat.10 iostat.pcp
> [26] Time: 03:49:59 PM
> Device: number of values? expected 12, found 3

It looks like iostat2pcp doesn't understand this timestamp format,
and the parser is attempting to treat the line "Time: 03:49:59 PM"
as a set of device values.  Is LC_TIME set in the environment when
iostat is being run?

And which version of iostat being used?  (rhel5 in output - is it
an old version?)  I think we can attempt to cater for this output
form, but it's worth reading the iostat2pcp(1) man page, from the
section starting:

"The best results are obtained when iostat(1) was run with [...]"

cheers.

--
Nathan

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