pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Checking PCP archives - RFC

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Checking PCP archives - RFC
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 21:57:40 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <519C0CCE.2080105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <519AC94B.9020904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <141842009.8767308.1369177350957.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <519C08C0.7000600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <230016256.8782810.1369180770282.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <519C0CCE.2080105@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: 83/VkYMep66UPbhjaml3UiWyN3LIag==
Thread-topic: Checking PCP archives - RFC

----- Original Message -----
> On 22/05/13 09:59, Nathan Scott wrote:
> 
> > src/pmlogsummary/pmlogcheck.c
> > man/man1/pmlogcheck.1
> 
> Oh!  and thanks!
> 
> I have no recollection of this ... and the git history does not reach
> back into the SGI source repository, so I can't even use p_blame.

My vague recollection is that its an Ania/Ken creation ... its that old :)
I only remember it because it was an offshoot of pmlogsummary which had
just been written a little earlier (which also uses non-interp mode) and
thats why it lives in that slightly odd spot in the tree.

> I need to go off and study this code and see how much overlap there is.
>   But it appears to be using pmFetchArchive() which is only going to
> work after passing the earlier passes proposed for (the new, and now
> name conflicted) pmlogcheck.
> 
> First reaction would be that the "new" pmlogcheck" would be a superset
> of, and replace, the existing tool of the same name.

Right, and perhaps this could turn into a final check phase/pass.  Hope
it helps, anyway.

cheers.

--
Nathan

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