pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] PCP Network Latency PMDA
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 21:41:02 -0400
Cc: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1241706054.31171165.1403487302812.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <53A34A47.3060008@xxxxxxxxxx> <53A352FF.9090906@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <y0m7g4c9wcp.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1241706054.31171165.1403487302812.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

> > > [...]  Depending on the overhead of this instrumentation, you may
> > > wish to consider using an additional control variable and pmStore(1)
> > > to allow a user to enable or disable the collection [...]
> > 
> > FWIW, I wish we leaned less on this particular technique.
> 
> The missing piece is better (client) tool support - its needed for not
> just enabling expensive metrics, but also server-side filtering.  [...]

Server-side filtering would still be a per-client proposition.  I
wouldn't want my run pmlogger to become silent just because some other
guy is filtering his stream.


> > The pmda infrastructure has the ability to track individual pcp
> > clients coming and going.  So, a pmda can/should activate
> > collection on demand,

> 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?

> A PMDA can export both expensive and inexpensive metrics too, or the
> enabled state may be system wide (like hardware counters, or gluster
> volume stats, or any of a number of other things that the underlying
> data domain creators have chosen not to enable by default).

Sure, these statistics may not be worth keeping if no one's listening.
But we're talking about the case where a PCP client has expressed
specific interest in them: it's the opposite case.

- FChE

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