Monday Jake Brutlag wrote: | Obviously there are some problems that changing the format could resolve, | but I didn't want to be the one to propose it. In a past life (okay, just 5 | years ago), I was working in tech support for a small database company and | there I learned that backwards compatibility is high priority. In the | current design, RRDtool can support version 1 and version 2 RRD files | without effort. If the format was changed, the code would need to branch to | preserve backwards compatibility.
well in the same manner it would have to branche to support a version 4 (I assume to do things properly COMPUTE would mean going to version 3) | On the otherhand, both the aberrant behavior detection and the COMPUTE data | source implementation had to jump through some hoops to fit within the | current RRD header structure. If a new, more flexible format, was selected | some of the ugliness could be cleaned up. my point here is that we are in 1.1.x series where big changes are permitted which is not the case in the even series ... so if we can find a format for rrd which is better to accomodate future changes, I think it would be worth while doing the changes now, and find a way to keep on reading old rrd files instead of adding more hacks and going to a better ormat later having evben more difficulty supporting old stuff ? tobi | | Jake | | Jake Brutlag ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Network Analyst | Microsoft WebTV | | -- | Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers | WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi | | -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker, Timelord & SysMgr @ EE-Dept ETH-Zurich / // _ \/ _ \/ / TEL: +41(0)1-6325286 FAX:...1517 ICQ: 10419518 /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ee-staff.ethz.ch/~oetiker -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi
