pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] new pmdas and some questions

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martins Innus <minnus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] new pmdas and some questions
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51CB5894.70604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51CB3E26.5060502@xxxxxxxxxxx> <51CB5894.70604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: TYwV67Uayl8xFT2TqGXN0jLBZG4iVQ==
Thread-topic: new pmdas and some questions
Hi guys,

----- Original Message -----
> On 27/06/13 05:16, Martins Innus wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >      We are in the process of writing a few pmdas and assuming all goes
> > well would make them publicly available. ...
> 
> That would be both welcome and encouraged.
> 
>  > I have a few questions on the
> > best way of going about this.  We have written and are currently testing
> > pmdas for the Panasas file system ( https://www.panasas.com/ ) and for
> > NVML ( https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-management-library-nvml ).
> > Can we reserve PMID's for these so we don't conflict with anything else?
> 
> Best to get the PMDA domain number assigned (which gives you a range of
> PMIDs and instance domain IDs to be managed as you see fit within your
> PMDA).
> 
> I have tentatively assigned
> PANASAS         118
> NVML            119
> in my tree ... pending your confirmation these will flow up stream to
> the official PCP tree in due course.

Gluster has slipped in at 118 earlier this week, so please shuffle these
assignments down by one.

> >      When complete, would we host these ourselves for download or is
> > there interest in incorporating them into pcp?  I ask because for
> > instance we use the Infiniband PMDA which is not distributed by default
> > with PCP anymore.  Is the expectation that niche pmdas like this would
> > live outside the main tree?  They both require 3rd party APIs in order
> > to build/test/run.
> 
> This is a per-PMDA decision.
> 
> In the tree means you can leverage the existing packaging framework and
> QA infrastructure, and you're more likely to receive code review
> feedback.  We can accommodate conditional builds for PMDAs based on the
> presence of 3rd party artifacts where such a dependency exists.
> 

Martins, see point 2 here as well:
    http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/pcp/2013-April/003139.html

In hind-sight, general feeling is that splitting the Infiniband PMDA out
on its own was a mistake, and its likely it will be brought back into the
main tree at some point soon.

Just mirroring Kens words, if the PMDA is to be released under a license
that is compatible, and it is a generally-useful PMDA (as these two are),
I would definitely recommend merging it into the main PCP git tree.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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