pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pmie rule for instance disappearing

To: Michael Newton <kimbrr@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pmie rule for instance disappearing
From: Jonathan Knispel <jkwaoz@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 17:29:39 +0800
Cc: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Goodwin <markgw@xxxxxxx>, Martin Hicks <mort@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SGI.4.58.0805021200370.153363238@snort.melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <20080410185433.GA7489@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0805021029100.153363238@snort.melbourne.sgi.com> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0805021200370.153363238@snort.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012)
On Friday 02 May 2008 13:14:13 Michael Newton wrote:
> we need a pmie rule to notice when any instance on a metric disappears.

> but the problem is that actually if the instance disppears,
> *both* cluster.blah *and* cluster.blah @1 become undefined.

  I'm pretty rusty but that sounds like a bug.  A rule that uses @4 and @5 
probably shouldn't stop "working" until time 4 * delta after the metric first 
disappears.  [ Down with historical revisionism!  ;) ]

> while im about it, wouldnt u expect count_inst( cluster.blah >=0 )
> to evaluate zero when there are no instances? and sum_inst ?

  Seems very reasonable.

  Having said those things, I do vaguely recall there were some fairly subtle 
issues dealing with zeroes and undefined values back in the early days.

Regards,
Jonathan

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