Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:31:22 -0500 (CDT) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | RE: IP Acounting Idea for 2.5 |
| |
Leif Sawyer <lsawyer@gci.com>: > > And that introduces errors in measurement. It also depends on > > how frequently an uncontroled process is clearing the counters. > > You may never be able to get a valid measurement. > > This is true. Which is why application programmers need to write > code as if they are not the only [ab]users of data. > > Which brings me back to my point. > > Don't force the kernel to uphold your local application requirements > of stable counters. > > Enforce it in the userspace portion of the code. > > <subtopic> > Yes, you could extend the proc filesystem (ugh) with a flag that could > be read by the ip[chains|tables] user app to determine if clearing flags > were allowed. Then a simple > > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/counters_locked > > or some such cruft. But I don't see this extension making into the > standard kernel at this time. It just seems to be wasteful. > </subtopic> > > If you (at your site) really need this type of functionality, it's > pretty darn simple to write a wrapper to ip[tables|chains] which > silently (or not so) drops the option to clear the counters before > calling the real version. > > Besides, what would be gained in making the counters RO, if they were > cleared every time the module was loaded/unloaded?
1. Knowlege that the module was reloaded. 2. Knowlege that the data being measured is correct 3. Having reliable measures 4. being able to derive valid statistics ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |