pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

archive format history, was Re: [Bug 1046] pmlogger heavy duplication in

To: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx, kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: archive format history, was Re: [Bug 1046] pmlogger heavy duplication in .meta output
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:34:12 -0500
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <bug-1046-936-ayvjAepxjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-1046-936@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/bugzilla/> <bug-1046-936-ayvjAepxjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/bugzilla/>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi, Ken -


> > - change lipcp/src/logmeta.c addindom and/or searchindom to merge
> >  rather than replace new instlist/namelist entries

> Are you suggesting reconstructing the temporal series of indom sets
> as per the current format?

I was talking more about representation on disk, as opposed to a
particular reading/caching algorithm.


> [...]  If we're going to attack this area, perhaps we should
> consider a more efficient data structure and processing algorithms
> ... certainly lazy instantiation is an option and because this data
> is often not used at all [...]

Righto.

Curious about another aspect of the history.  Can someone explain how
come we ended up with a .meta file that's separate from the main
volume?  The records could be intermingled in one (the pmFetch PDU's
might just need a tag prefix, or maybe not even that).  Both sets
accumulate timewise.  If the .meta data is a small fraction of the
total, it could be replicated in subsequent volumes without much fuss.
So why a separate file?

If we had the meta+metric data together, we could have instantly a
pipe/streaming format - something we've wanted for special PMDA
purposes, but could come in handy in other ways.

- FChE

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