On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Jos Visser wrote:
>Before I can fix the problem, or pound on the vendor, I have to be aware
>that the problem exists. I need automated system monitoring for that,
>and the system monitors must have a quick and efficient way to get at
>the information.
Ok, you're right - I never thought of that...
>Once I know the problem exists, and before the vendor has
>solved it (in which they are not always as responsive as one
>would like), I need to be able to implement an automated
>temporary fix (e.g. bouncing the parent process). The automated
>operations framework needs to recognise that the problem is
>occurring again, and therefore needs to get at the information.
Right.
>Obviously the problem are the closed source applications. It is usually
>not possible to dump an application that has been selected for
>functional/business purposes because of a minor technical
>problem/nuisance.
Ok, so I see your point, and agree that you do need to monitor
the system with something. Doing so in-kernel is likely a nice
easy way for you to do so, and that is fine. I don't think it is
ok to put it in the mainstream kernel though, as it just ads
more bloat. It would be useful for specific systems however.
Take care,
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris Linux advocate Computer Consultant GNU advocate Capslock Consulting Open Source advocateSuspicious Anagram #4: Word: PRESIDENT CLINTON OF THE USA Anagram: TO COPULATE HE FINDS INTERNS
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:16 EST