[ofa-general] IB performance stats (revisited)

[Mark Seger]

Hal Rosenstock wrote:

>On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 13:07, Mark Seger wrote:
>  
>
>>>The performance managers deal with the counter stickiness (by resetting
>>>them when they think they need to). They typically export their data
>>>although this is not specified by IBA so it is in a vendor proprietary
>>>manner.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>so I guess these guys are poor citizens as well...
>>    
>>
>
>Not sure what you mean.
>  
>
I consider it poor form to zero counters out from someone else who might 
be in the middle of trying to read them and though that's what you mean 
when you said why I was doing was "Yes, it is _bad_ if there are 
essentially multiple performance managers resetting the counters."  I am 
most definately guilty as charged and trying real hard to get out from 
under which is why I suggested a module that exports wrapping counters 
to /proc.  Then, as long as ALL utilities rely on those numbers, the 
module can reset them all likes and nobody interfers with each other 
since there is only one program doing that.

>>the real issue as I see it then means nobody can trust the data if 
>>randon tools randomly reset the counters.  a real shame...
>>    
>>
>
>I consider this to be a real rather than random app for this. Guess it
>depends on what one considers random.
>  
>
I used the term 'random' loosely, but my point is as long as anyone can 
reset the counters and you never know if it's happening or not, you'll 
get bogus data and I'm trying to find a way to get around it.
-mark

>-- Hal
>
>  
>
>>-mark
>>
>>
>>    
>>