pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA

To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140623014102.GI8337@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53A34A47.3060008@xxxxxxxxxx> <53A352FF.9090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7g4c9wcp.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1241706054.31171165.1403487302812.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140623014102.GI8337@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: KHF4bbLpuW9StEA986tq9SeD2nmy0g==
Thread-topic: PCP Network Latency PMDA

----- Original Message -----
> > A client simply showing interest in the metrics from a PMDA is not enough
> > information to know whether expensive collection should be enabled or not
> > though.
> 
> Why not?
> 

PMDAs can export many metrics, some may be expensive others not.  Take
Wills example of network.* for example, which would be handled by the
Linux kernel PMDA.  It exports many other metrics, and enabling every
single expensive metric that might make sense for it to export, simply
because pminfo connected and asked for a value (of an unrelated metric)
would not be sensible.

Nor should it become a requirement that any PMDA that has expensive
metrics, can only export those expensive metrics and not inexpensive
ones.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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