[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] extension to larrd module for Apache 1.x - patch
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] extension to larrd module for Apache 1.x - patch
- From: henrik (at) hswn.dk (Henrik Stoerner)
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 22:57:18 +0200
- References: <9B3C0C86BE46BF499B7B8E10E397F6C0012A4771@s2h3118r>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Hi Uwe,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:56:07PM +0200, U.Kirbach (at) EnBW.com wrote:
>
> to measure performance data (Busy/Idle Servers) also for Apache 1.x servers
> not only for Apache 2.x i would suggest to include these small patches
> (made with "diff -uBbw") to hobbitd/larrd/do_apache.c and
> hobbit/server/etc/hobbitgraph.cfg
>
> This produces 2 additional data sources in the apache rrd (for busy servers
> and idle servers)
> --> inconsistency with existing rrd files
I'm curious why it is necessary to add more datasets.
An Apache 1.3.27 server I have provides this data:
Total Accesses: 988370
Total kBytes: 9415292
CPULoad: .0035971
Uptime: 586028
ReqPerSec: 1.68656
BytesPerSec: 16451.9
BytesPerReq: 9754.71
BusyServers: 4
IdleServers: 10
An Apache 2.0.54 server looks like this:
Total Accesses: 34406
Total kBytes: 100346
CPULoad: .00730915
Uptime: 82773
ReqPerSec: .415667
BytesPerSec: 1241.4
BytesPerReq: 2986.52
BusyWorkers: 1
IdleWorkers: 9
The only difference is the keyword (BusyServers/BusyWorkers and
IdleServers/IdleWorkers). So a much simpler patch would be to recognize
both keywords and use the same dataset - that would avoid incompatible
RRD-files, and also allow for upgrading Apache without losing your
historical data.
Regards,
Henrik