Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:52:55 -0700 From: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is describing sysctl variables useful? Message-ID: <20080404165255.GT48868@bunrab.catwhisker.org> In-Reply-To: <20080404083246.GV49813@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20080403202620.GG48868@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20080404083246.GV49813@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--JMCz+drDJ1SjddZX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 07:32:46PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > ... > Whilst not addressing your issues with sysctl, have you considered > using process accounting (acct(5) and sa(8))? Yes, but I have the impression (of which I wouldn't mind being disabused) that that approach would perturb the systems being measured somewhat more than using time(1) for the selected processes and sysctl(8) to get information on the overall system status. Note that I'm interested in measuring rather specific instantiations of certain commands/processes -- not the bulk of them. I believe that makes a salient difference. Peace, david --=20 David H. Wolfskill david@catwhisker.org I submit that "conspiracy" would be an appropriate collective noun for cats. See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. --JMCz+drDJ1SjddZX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkf2XOYACgkQmprOCmdXAD3mMwCghJ37Om8AdGqLHBRL0Xs/jBmt hsQAnjINzOCjEedZkhR8SVOAYcA8VZ+Y =vYnf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JMCz+drDJ1SjddZX--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080404165255.GT48868>