[Nagiosplug-devel] Re: Suggested alterations to the Performan ce Protocol (Re: Nagiosplug-devel digest, Vol 1 #653 - 5 msgs)

[Karl DeBisschop]

Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Yves Mettier wrote:
> 
>>> It seems there are two arguments here:
>>>
>>> 1) some users might want more presision than nagios provides. You are
>>> not one of them. Nor am I. Do people really need better than one-second
>>> resolution? If they think they do, how often is it reallt accurate when
>>> it come from different machines which wil have dispersion in ther
>>> clocks? (I'm thinking of a distributed setup here)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you make a graph for only one machine, there is no dispersion of 
>> the clocks. I agree
>> for the rest.
>>
> 
> If you make a graph for only one machine you can do just fine with a 
> gnumeric spreadsheet (or a paper and a pen, for that matter).

It's not a question of how many machines you monitor -- it's a question 
of how many machines do the monitoring.

With regard to this whole time of execution concept, I don't have a 
problem with agreeing to a few reserved words that a plugin might use to 
express start time (or execution time).

I would suggest start_time and exec_time.

But in a world where plugind DO sometimes overflow named pipe limits, I 
am would have to agrue against their inclusion in the general plugin 
distributions, at least without a special switch to enable the extra data.

Does that get use closer to where we want to be?

--
Karl