Il giorno dom, 11/08/2013 alle 14.20 +0200, Maciej Piechotka ha scritto: > On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 14:03 +0200, Stefano Facchini wrote: > > Il giorno dom, 11/08/2013 alle 06.45 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > > So, I wonder if it makes sense to stop generating libgtop and instead > > > just focus on a solid, easily understood codebase. I never really > > > understood why we had a client/daemon split, either; it doesn't seem > > > that we're doing anything too fancy on either side. Is it that we > > > require root for reading some of the files? Should we move to a system > > > DBus service instead? > > > > > > > I think that root access is required if we want to implement monitoring > > of: > > * per process disk activity (à la iotop) > > * per process network usage (à la nethogs) > > > > That said, a DBus service should be perfectly fine for these features. > > As a question - what about timeouts? Usually gnome-system-monitor is > useful when there is heavy I/O, CPU usage or swapping and in such cases > dbus timeouts can and do happen. > Yes you're right, when there's high disk activity dbus can be slow. I was more thinking of network usage, because it's the only one I started prototyping as DBus service :)
> Moving into more complex area - since application handling on Linux > moves to systemd+cgroups would it make sense to get information per > cgroup rather then per-process (+ nice user-readable name such as "Web" > or "Epiphany" rather then "/usr/libexec/WebKitPluginProcess")? Possibly > something less readable for systems without cgroup-like session > handling. > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
