Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Nils Carlson
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 9:13 PM, David Goulet <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm submitting a RFC about a "new daemon model" for UST.
This is the *first* draft... so a lot of feedback will be appreciated for
improvements and ideas!
At first glance I'm concerned about a root ustd daemon. One of the
things I like about LTTng UST is that it's low on administration
overhead and configuration. Putting a central service in place that
mediates access introduces a level of complexity that makes it harder
for unprivileged users who want to quickly trace something in an app
they are running or developing.
The central daemon is already in place. I assume your talking about
using the usttrace command?
I don't remember ever running as root or having the daemon get in the
way. It makes sense to have an out-of-process daemon but keeping
lightweight ad-hoc usage supported is important. Especially for
userspace tracing, LTTng has a big advantage over SystemTap here due
to less headaches installing and configuring the tracing system.
The daemon, ustd or ustconsumerd (renamed in the latest version) can run
in multiple instances. If you run it as a normal user using the usttrace
command it will create its socket in a different place than the central
daemon and the application started by usttrace will connect to your its own
daemon using that socket. I think this design should be possible to keep
without too much ado.
Do you ever start applications without using the usttrace command and
connect
to them with ustctl?
/Nils
Stefan
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
