pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] hotproc rfc

To: Martins Innus <minnus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] hotproc rfc
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <54230FAF.2080201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <536D28B4.6010504@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1139662762.4765310.1399862104653.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <54230FAF.2080201@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: xBUSJ2/3wbBIVWg1+K5CFDmmm53WUw==
Thread-topic: hotproc rfc
Hi Martins,

----- Original Message -----
> Nathan,
> 
> On 5/11/2014 10:35 PM, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Hi Martins,
> >
> > It is good to hear someone's become interested in this topic again!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hello,
> >>       I have started looking into reviving the hotproc pmda.  Before I
> >> get too far into it, I wanted to make sure no one else was looking at it
> >> and if my approach looks reasonable.
> 
> OK, I looked into both the cgroup integration that you mentioned and the
> client side implementation that Frank suggested and couldn't really come
> up with a clean way of implementing either, mostly due to my lack of
> confidence in managing the cgroup hierarchy and keeping everything in
> sync.  So I just went ahead for now and did a straight up integration
> with the existing proc pmda.  If you decide you want to present the

No problem at all.

> information in cgroups in the end, hopefully this could at least be a
> starting point, since the process selection, config parsing, etc would
> still need to be done.

Agreed.  Also, any solution using cgroups is only ever going to be able
to run on Linux of course, so there's wider value in your work here even
if a cgroups approach does eventuate someday.

I'll take a more detailed look soon - please keep the updates coming in
the meantime though.  Thanks!

cheers.

--
Nathan

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