On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Tim Gardner wrote: > > You are correct in that I am reluctant to drag in unmaintained crack > into core kernel structures. > > I still find 'better task accounting' to be insufficient justification. > What specifically makes for better task accounting? Why is atop better > then other methods? As far as I can tell the current patches still > suffer from the deficiencies mentioned by Andrew Morton in > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120716470803492&w=2 > > Gimme an example of a problem that atop will help solve for which no > other method will suffice. >
I just recently was contacted by a friend looking for help on periodic "total site freeze" issues with a web application. Atop revealed some badly behaving processes where regular top did not, because processes "in disk wait" might be waiting to read/write, and with hundreds of httpd's on the machine in disk wait, its painful to try and find out whats going on. Its such an instant revelation of activity, I really think as systems scale up these sorts of tools are really vital. Whether atop as it is now is the way to do this remains to be decided. I recall talking with Cole Crawford at UDS about KSLM which may add similar capabilities to the kernel but in a more elegant way. I've CC'd Cole to get his opinion on this as well. -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
