On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:15:00 -0400, Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > So this may be a little long winded... > > To quickly preface my thoughts I first want to state something pretty > obvious. In a multi tenant environment ( the current direction we seem > to > be headed ) I could care less about some of the tools that are packaged > in > sysstat and procps. I don't care about load avg etc for self explanatory > reasons and presently io reporting (especially in a multi app/multi user > scenario) is lacking. > > That being said I think tools like atop, systemtap, oprofile are good but > present 2 problems. They are still tools with competition from closed > source companies ( BMC to name 1) that will ultimately lead to > discrepancies > in collected data and they stop short of the challenge The Linux > Foundation > has asked the community to tackle with regard to keeping the kernel > relevant > for the next 5-10 years. > > KSLM is focused purely on gathering statistics around the 5 basic > principals > of compute ( cpu / memory / disk (storage) / time / IO (disk and net) on > a > per process basis in a standard way across distros and cpu architectures > using a consistent thing across all implementations (the kernel itself). > > So to summarize, could kslm be used to solve the same issue described > below, > yep! Would it be as elegant as atop? Part of it's elegance is that it's > distro agnostic and if used correctly, could be used to actually do > intelligent workload management and remediation if conditions (like long > disk waits) are met. > > Cole >
One issue, is that it appears that is zero public information (as per google) on KSLM. Could you lend any pointers to code or documentation about KSLM? I waited and had a look at your linuxcon slides but there's not much content there. http://events.linuxfoundation.org/slides/2010/linuxcon2010_crawford.pdf All measurement tools will face competition from other measurement tools, be they commercial or opensource. In terms of distro agnostic mechanisms of capturing those 5 metrics on a per process basis, afaics atop w/ kernel process accounting patch does indeed provide this minus the notion of process disk (storage). thanks, Kapil > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Clint Byrum > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> 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
