unsubscribe
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:00 PM, <[email protected]>wrote: > Send desktop-devel-list mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of desktop-devel-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Stefano Facchini) > 2. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Maciej Piechotka) > 3. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Stefano Facchini) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:03:24 +0200 > From: Stefano Facchini <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 (? la iotop) > * per process network usage (? la nethogs) > > That said, a DBus service should be perfectly fine for these features. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:20:49 +0200 > From: Maciej Piechotka <[email protected]> > To: Stefano Facchini <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer > Message-ID: <1376223649.26340.7.camel@localhost> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 (? la iotop) > > * per process network usage (? 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. > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:35:12 +0200 > From: Stefano Facchini <[email protected]> > To: Maciej Piechotka <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > 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 (? la iotop) > > > * per process network usage (? 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. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > > ------------------------------ > > End of desktop-devel-list Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11 > *************************************************** >
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
