pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Possibly quirky libpcp_pmda behavior?

To: nscott@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Possibly quirky libpcp_pmda behavior?
From: Max Matveev <makc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:27:24 +1100
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1174531287.5051.504.camel@edge>
References: <1174523743.5051.439.camel@edge> <17921.59938.22791.120850@kuku.melbourne.sgi.com> <1174531287.5051.504.camel@edge>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> "nscott" == Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 nscott> Hi (ghost of?) Max,
Boo!

 nscott> No, not sure that will help - PM_TYPE_NOSUPPORT is -1, which
 nscott> will trip the less-than-zero guard on the fetchCallback call
 nscott> in libpcp_pmda, and that will end up in the same fprintf.
 nscott> No?

No. The idea here is to cut all calls to pmdaFetch for the metric you
don't support. First of all, if a metric is "intermittent" then you
have an option to return empty pmResult from the fetch - this is a
valid response. But if you're sure that metric is not going to be
available at all then either return error from pmLookupDesc to stop
clients from calling you or give them a descriptor with NO_SUPPORT
type and that should stop them too.

max

PS. I wonder what would it take to make pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx a
subscriber-only list? 

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