[cgl_discussion] 01/09/2003 Poc Meeting Minutes

Davis, Todd C todd.c.davis at intel.com
Fri Jan 10 06:46:22 PST 2003

Todd C. Davis
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of Intel Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Badovinatz [mailto:tabmowzo at us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:59 PM
To: Randy.Dunlap
Cc: Lynch, Rusty; 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'; todd.c.davis at intel.com
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] 01/09/2003 Poc Meeting Minutes

[Todd Davis] ...

> 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).

I'm looking at the Req. doc now, and the only one that I wouldn't be
comfortable with saying is covered is the performance one (4.1.5)
because I've not the hands on experience with that.  If Todd is
comfortable there, then I would be too.  I think PCP well covers all of
the other points (with limitations and future work directions as
described by Todd.)
[Todd Davis] The Performance Metric Collection Daemon (pmcd) meets the
requirement. Since number of monitoring processes, Performance Metric
Inference Engine (pmie) processes, that are created and the monitoring
parameters such as the frequency of the sampling, configurations of pmies
could cause this requirement to be exceeded. PCP reasonably configured to
generate alerts would easily meet this requirement. PCP configured for
intensive performance analysis could exceed the 1% CPU utilization limit.

> Thanks,
> --
> ~Randy

Peter R. Badovinatz aka 'Wombat' -- IBM Linux Technology Center
preferred: tabmowzo at us.ibm.com / alternate: wombat at us.ibm.com
These are my opinions and absolutely not official opinions of IBM, Corp.

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list