[bind10-dev] Question about statistics incremental update

[Michal 'vorner' Vaner]

Hello

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 06:57:07PM +0900, fujiwara at jprs.co.jp wrote:
> Question 1: Which do you prefer that transfered statistics data
>             is increment(delta) or counter data itself ?
> 
> * Option 1: some of statistics data are increment(delta).
>             each statistics data is an increment from last read.
>             it is transfered if the increment from last read is not zero.
> 
> * Option 2: Each statistics data is transfered
>             if the data is changed frm last read.
> 
>             pros: It is already implemented at trac2179:
>                   Update Stats to support partial statistics updates
> 
>             cons: It requires previous counters at last read
>                   and it doubles couter memory usage at statistics targets.

Personally, I like the first option more. For one, the memory consumption
(actually, we may be unaware of the list of zones before they are queried, if
there are really many zones in the database, the option 1 allows us to forget
about them again when sent ‒ with option 2, the list of seldom used zones must
still be kept in memory).

But the main reason is, currently, we have quite a nasty hack to cope with
multiple instances of auth server and restarting of them and we are losing some
of the counts on restart of auth, etc. This could solve the problem quite
naturally.

With regards

-- 
BOFH Excuse #452:
Somebody ran the operating system through a spelling checker.

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/attachments/20121009/04bb70f7/attachment.bin>