[Orca-dev] [PATCH] Updates to include additional Solaris performancemetrics for graphing

[Sean O'Neill]

At 09:26 PM 12/19/2002 -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
>Sean O'Neill wrote:
> >
> > >Also, please include the log message with any diffs.  It makes it
> > >easier to have the entire patch and log message in one email,
> > >rather than finding the old email with the log message.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here.  What "log message" ?  You mean a log entry
> > from svn ?  Assuming so, I thought log entries were only done during a
> > commit action which I can't do - maybe time for me to read the SVN doco
> > again ? :)
>
>The log message you sent with the original email in November, portions
>shown here:
>
>Additions to Orca to collect and graph the following metrics for SE 3.2.1
>(Solaris 8 and below) and SE 3.3 (Solaris 9):
>
>pgrec - page reclaims (include pageout)
>pgfrec - page reclaims from free list
>.....
>Changes made to:
>
>* orcallator/orcallator.cfg.in:  additions to graphs metrics listed above
>
>* orcallator/orcallator.se: additions to collect metrics listed above
>
>* orcallator/start_orcallator.sh.in: updates to correctly identify the
>version of the SE tool kit in use to properly include the correct version
>of orca_p_vmstat_class.se.
>.....
>

Oh, sorry.  I'll add this with the next set of updates based on your comments.


> >
> > >Regarding ./lib/Orca/Constants.pm, I'd like to keep this change out of
> > >this patch.  How do the output PNG files look with this change?
> >
> > 
> http://chivas.oneill.dhs.org/orca/o_gauge_usr_pct,o_gauge_sys_pct,o_gauge_wio_pct,o_gauge_idle_pct-hourly.html
>
>The plots look great.  Did you change the plot width on these or
>did Orca make them wider automatically?

No, I just changed the 1.5 to 3 for the hourly graph setup in Constants.pm. 
That's it.

> >
> > The data elements in the graph are still obvious enough that you can
> > differentiate between the data elements for whatever interval you have Orca
> > setup for.   Note the data in the graph example is 1 minute interval data -
> > not 5 minutes.  I don't have any graph examples show this new data using 5
> > minute intervals - sorry.
> >
> > >One of the things that these numbers are designed for is that the number
> > >of data points in a plot is less than the number of pixels in a plot,
> > >otherwise RRD needs to resample the data, and this change from 1.5
> > >days to 3 days bumps the number of data points from 432 to 864, which
> > >is greater than the default width of 500.
> >
> > Three days ??? The change I made to Constants.pm makes the Hourly graph
> > chart 3 hours worth of data instead of the usual 1.5 hours - not 3 days -
> > unless there is something I missed when changing this - which apparently I
> > did.  You've lost me on the math you are using for the number data elements
> > vs pixels.  Following the comments in Constants.pm:
> >
>
>Oops, sorry, got the plots confused there.
>
>Yes, no problem changing the number of hours in this plot as long
>as Orca makes the width wide enough for all the data points.

Kewl

> > (1.5*60*60)/300 = 18 data points
> >
> > My changes double this to 36 data points but I'm not sure how this relates
> > to what you are referring to above.
> >
> > How does this math work out when the collection interval is changed to 60
> > seconds ?
>
>I just compare the number of points being plotted with the number of pixels
>in the output plot.  If they don't match well, then resampling occurs.

k

>Here's the text from Constants.pm:
>
># For each plot type, the first value in the array reference is the
># number of 300 second intervals are used in a plot.  The second value
># is the number of seconds graphed in the plots.  Be careful to not
># increase the time interval so much that the number of data points to
># plot are greater than the number of pixels available for the image,
># otherwise there will be a 30% slowdown due to a reduction
># calculation to resample the data to the lower resolution for the
># plot.  For example, with 40 days of 2 hour data, there are 480 data
># points.  For no slowdown to occur, the image should be at least 481
># pixels wide.
>
> > Actually, if this does something weird like forcing Orca to
> > "resample" all the time, can you write something up and put this into the
> > Orca FAQ to explain the "cost" of making the interval shorter - assuming
> > this is a cost that is ?
>
>Is the text above good enough?

Yeah that's kewl.


--
........................................................
......... ..- -. .. -..- .-. ..- .-.. . ... ............
.-- .. -. -... .-.. --- .-- ... -.. .-. --- --- .-.. ...

Sean O'Neill