Re: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector

[Guillaume Thouvenin <guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net>]

On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 07:35 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Guillaume wrote:
> > I ran some test using the CBUS instead of the cn_netlink_send() routine
> > and the overhead is nearly 0%:
> 
> Overhead of what?  Does this include merging the data and getting it to
> disk?

I test the overhead of sending the fork information to a user space
application. The merge of the data is done later and it has nothing to
do with the fork connector...

> Am I even asking the right question here - is it true that this data,
> when collected for accounting purposes, needs to go to disk, and that
> summarizing and analyzing the data is done 'off-line', perhaps hours
> later?  That's the way it was 25 years ago ... but perhaps the basic
> data flow appropriate for accounting has changed since then.

  Accounting is another problem and, as you said previously, summarizing
and analyzing the data is done later. 

  I'm sorry but I really don't understand why you're speaking about
accounting when I present results about fork connector. I agree that
ELSA is using the fork connector but the fork connector has nothing to
do with accounting.

Regards,
Guillaume


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/