On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Mike Blackwell <mike.blackwell@rrd.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good. I personally don't have any interest in log file i/o counters,
>> but that's just me. I wonder if stats collector counters might be useful...
>> I seem to recall an effort to improve that area. Maybe not enough use to
>> take the performance hit on a regular basis, though.
>>
>
>
> +1.
>
> I tend to be a bit touchy about any changes to code that runs
> frequently. We need to seriously test if the overhead added by this
> patch is worth it.
>
> IMO, the idea is pretty good. Its just that we need to do some wide
> spectrum performance testing. Thats only my thought though.
>
I didn't implement the code yet, but my impression is that since it
will be the stats collector gathering counters about itself there will
be very little overhead (no message passing, etc.) .. just a few int
calculations and storing a few more bytes in the global stats file.
The log file io tracking would generate some overhead though, similar
to network stats tracking.
I think the stats collector concerns voiced previously on the list
were more about per relation stats which creates alot of io on servers
with many tables. Adding global stats doesn't seem as bad to me.
-nigel.
