[cgl_discussion] 01/09/2003 Poc Meeting Minutes

Randy.Dunlap rddunlap at osdl.org
Thu Jan 9 13:40:48 PST 2003

On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Lynch, Rusty wrote:

| ARS:
|   - Ram to resend (or get Todd resend) previous Performance Co-Pilot
|     project evaluation research
Got it.

|   - The rest of the team to take the time to read over the Performance
|     Co-Pilot research
| _______________________________________________


This seems to be a very good comparison of Resource Monitor and PCP.
I do have a few comments and questions about it.

1.  CGL requirement 4.1.4 Resource Monitor Data Persistence:
OSDL CGL resource monitor framework shall provide the ability to capture and
persist time stamped data. A set of APIs must be provided for an application
to retrieve persisted historical data for analysis and display purposes.

Does RM or PCP address this?  If so, how?
Maybe (probably) there's some lack of detail in this requirement,
and that could be confusing me.

2.  PCP seems to focus on system-level performance versus system-level
resource monitoring.  Can you comment on this?

Can both PCP and RM be configured to send an email or other kind of alert
for something trivial (but important) to someone when a disk partition
reaches 95% full, e.g.?

3.  PCP supports both local and remote monitoring of data.
This is highly important IMO and a huge gap in RM.

4.  The comparison does a good comparison of PCP and RM, but we need
something that tells if/how they fulfull the CGL requirements also
(4.1.2 thru 4.1.5) (as asked in #1 above).


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list