On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:42:13PM +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote: > > NEW FEATURES: > > > > * UPDATEV support? It would require the daemon to keep a copy of the RRD > > header of each file in memory, and perform the same calculations that > > will ultimately be performed on the real file. > > > > - higher memory utilization > > Do you know any numbers for that? I suppose that this would have a > fairly large impact on large setups. I'd prefer to be able to use the > available memory to be able to cache real data instead of being able to > use UPDATEV. So, if this should be implemented, imho it should be made > optional. I'm not sure though if that's worth the effort though as that > would presumably add quite some complexity.
Agreed it should be made optional once implemented.. We wouldn't want the daemon caching a lot of RRD headers if the users never used UPDATEV. > (Disclaimer: I did not really follow that, so I might repeat stuff or > just talk plain bullshit - if so, please tell me ;-)) Check my previous email on the thread and let me know if you still have questions about the BATCH protocol. The current implementation is documented in rrdcached.pod. > I suppose, the goal is to be able to run a series of commands in a row > with a high update rate but _not_ to be able to continuously run > commands forever. The goal with BATCH is to reduce the number of read()/write() syscalls required when updating files. This enables updates at a very high rate (I'm getting > 100k/sec even on 5yo hardware). -- kevin brintnall =~ /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
