[pcp] mmv and qa/648 questions
nscott at aconex.com
Sun Nov 29 20:52:49 CST 2009
----- "Ken McDonell" <kenj at internode.on.net> wrote:
> I've been looking at the mmv pmda and QA coverage.
> What is the expected behaviour when more than one mmv stats file
> mentions the _same_ cluster?
> I'll chase it down, if you can give me an indication of what was
> supposed to happen.
> I think for the Aconex-style semantics, forming the union of the
> mmap'd files over a common cluster is probably correct, but I don't
> think was within the scope of the original mmv implementation.
You're on the money there. It was indeed not in the scope of the
original PMDA, and it is planned to be used by the revised Aconex
PMDA. I just need to get back to it, to fix it up (it worked at
one point, when that QA test was written, but IIRC something was
found wrong with it - so I commented the test out till I could get
time for a more detailed look). I'd love to see it working ... !
On a related note, there was some discussion the other day about
making pmdammv a default install like pmcd and kernel PMDAs - any
thoughts there? Idea was to make everything work out-of-the-box
with MMV (since it should work on all platforms & since we can now
do a DSO MMV, there wouldn't be any extra daemon running, etc).
More information about the pcp