Chuck Lever wrote: > On Mar 12, 2009, at Mar 12, 2009, 3:32 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:22:32PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> Actually I would rather see the performance metrics scripts improved. >>> These tools give a lot more information than nfsstat ever will be able >>> to. >> >> Probably so, but those scripts are a bit hard to find, aren't they? >> >> We should >> - get distributions to install them by default >> - write man pages? >> - add references to them where possible (from the nfsstat man >> page, from howto's/faq's/?) > > Steve promised me Red Hat would take care of this when these were added > to nfs-utils last year. Not sure what I exactly promised (that's usually not my style 8-) ) but those scripts definitely fell off my radar... > >> Until then, unfortunately, improvements to nfsstat are more useful, >> since nfsstat is the thing people are more likely to run across. > > Again, I think improving nfsstat at this point (which is merely for > compatibility with Solaris) would be wasted work, if we already have > what is needed in another tool. The Python tools are much more > sophisticated, and it would be confusing to add their functionality to > nfsstat (e.g. why can I zero the legacy stats with the -z option, but > not the stats the come from /proc/self/mountstats?). > > Let's spend the effort on the tools that give us deeper results. I have to agree... I truly think there is a wealth of untapped information in those mountstats... Just waiting for someone to dip them out... steved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
