This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org mailing list for the systemtap project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing


nathans@aconex.com wrote:
----- "Greg Banks" <gnb@evostor.com> wrote:

Sure we could do it in pmproxy, but I don't see what it buys us other
than not having to start one more daemon in the init script?

From someone who is administering a number of sites (ie. me) that would want to use both, it's a big win. One less open port to register & worry about,
Oh, you want to run both protocols on the same port? Wow, I was thinking a separate port, e.g. port 80 or 8000, for the new one. So we don't have to futz around detecting which protocol is being used, and so that they can be firewalled separately.

 get to share all the code for dealing with multiplexing requests
already ... *shrug* ... why not?  Seems like a no-brainer choice - just
inject new code at pmproxy.c line 320 and 350 for web clients.

That main loop is the easiest 5% of the code involved :)

--
Greg.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]