On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Yonah Russ <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well I took a look at the scripting option and assuming you meant escript, > it doesn't look like something I'll be picking up from scratch in an hour > or so ;) > No I referred to your favorite scripting language. Like perl, ruby, tcl or something else. > > I hacked port_sigar as you suggested to print the reply values to stderr > and ran it using the example.escript which is in the source directory ( I > hope that was a reasonable thing to do). > > Here is the output from one of the couchbase servers: > > ./portsigar/example.escript > cpu_total_ms: 67285756633 > cpu_idle_ms: 32306446002 > swap_total: 8589934592 > swap_used: 1717555200 > swap_page_in: 5915867 > swap_page_out: 87010188 > mem_total: 4294967296 > mem_used: 18446744073677623296 > mem_actual_used: 18446744017909834968 > mem_actual_free: 60094683944 > escript: exception error: no match of right hand side value > > <<2,0,0,0,40,3,0,0,217,42,139,170,15,0,0,0,178,62,157,133,7,0, > > 0,0,0,0,0,0,2,0,0,0,0,208,95,102,0,0,0,0,219,68,90,0,0,0,0, > 0,140,...>> > > Obviously the mem_used and mem_actual_used numbers are way off. > I dug into it deeper and it seems the calculations made by sigar are wrong > when running inside a zone. > I'll keep looking for a long term solution to that but the thing is that > these calculations in sigar haven't changed in 3 years so what changed in > 2.5.1 that caused the numbers in the interface to come out screwy? > You can find out by using git log on sigar and sigar_port. Both projects are low "traffic" so you should be able to spot something that looks solaris-specific. Most likely it's due to some change in sigar but I could be wrong. I.e. maybe it's due to sigar_port asking for more stats. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Couchbase" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
