And forwarding the reply (with permission)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Frank Ch. Eigler <fche(a)redhat.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Matahari] Forw: matahari: comparing Sigar and PCP for
data gathering
To: Andrew Beekhof <andrew(a)beekhof.net>
Hi, Andrew -
First up, thankyou for the very detailed analysis.
The challenge, from my perspective, is not so much "does PCP check the
same boxes as Sigar" but more "Is there something compelling in PCP
that makes the migration work worthwhile".
To date, I'd have to say no.
Fair enough. My point was not to establish necessity for PCP, but its
(approximate) sufficiency. Once we get PCP into RHEL, and its
benefits become easier to see, then I suspect the issue will
eventually become how - not whether - to transition.
[...] On that topic, how does PCP represent/name network interfaces
on Windows?
From pcp src/pmdas/windows/instance.c:
/*
* Examples:
* \\WINNT\Network Interface(MS TCP Loopback interface)\Bytes Total/sec
*/
case NETIF_INDOM:
it seems like they parse out the parenthesized part, s/ /_/g it, then use that.
- FChE