| To: | Jeff Hanson <jhanson@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] pmclusterd versus other solutions |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 5 Sep 2016 19:57:52 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>, PCP <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <49c5d203-5378-5cbb-7092-7ed23035af56@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <3b551b84-ff74-5b9c-5854-3bdcba1c1212@xxxxxxx> <CAFmffyUkbMi1g3XScEE-XjEHBmdbd5WvHZ6UpGKN_eZtG6pm=g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49c5d203-5378-5cbb-7092-7ed23035af56@xxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | 5xh/5Gw/EWDMz71XJeTCDtVxW2JgKA== |
| Thread-topic: | pmclusterd versus other solutions |
Hi Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- > > This is the daemon that aggregates indoms for per-cluster-node CPU > > data on the head node, so > [...] > See the emails from 11 August on Debugging sigpipe in pmda. > > But the real problem is that although pmclusterd exposes some 100 metrics or > so but only 20 of them are actually able to be fetched. > I expect the problem will be due to latency in the polling of remote cluster nodes, which IIRC is done in a serial fashion (one node after the other IOW) so one slow-reponding node will affect timeliness of all values? A design which did the remote fetching in parallel would be better suited, if so. You could go with a model where multiple processes fetch then write metrics using MMV(5) format - see also mmv_stats_init(3) - so a new PMDA may not be needed at all. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] Help with troubleshooting issue with postfix pmda, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Dies ist fÃr Sie, Krediit Darleehen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: pmclusterd versus other solutions, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] pmclusterd versus other solutions, Mark Goodwin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |