On 2009-10-05, at 23:50:17 Sebastian Harl <s...@tokkee.org> wrote: > Hi Mariusz, > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:35:41PM +0200, XANi wrote: > > >on 2009-10-05 at 23:27:14 > > >Sebastian Harl <s...@tokkee.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:57:47AM +0200, Raimund Sacherer wrote: > > > > * About the enPlugin disPlugin, i do not think the user will > > > > have a lot of benefit here. > > > > > > > > It's great if there are a bunch of plugins which do not really > > > > need configuration, if a (very) few packages need them it's ok, > > > > but if you *need* to configure every plugin it would be a little > > > > configuration nightmare. > > > > > > That's what I fear as well. So, I guess, I'll just drop that > > > idea ;-) It probably makes much more sense to work on some nifty > > > configuration tool upstream but not even that might be of much > > > benefit (especially when compared to the required efforts) … > > Hmm maybe make 4 confing files: > > * Global (Interval, basedir, plugindir TypesDB etc). > > * Input plugins > > * Output plugins (rrdtool, csv etc.) > > * Filters > > What about plugins that can be put into more than one category? E.g., > the "network" plugin is an input and output plugin. > > > Then for example Admin could use same output plugin config for all > > nodes and tweak others per-node. > > I'm not sure if admins, in general, would really benefit from that. In > most cases, the admins will have to adopt the config anyway, so they > won't benefit from a rather general split like that (imho). Yeah I guess most ppl won't use it.... guess we're stuck with One Big File then ;]. Tho some kind of autodetect mechanism would be nice (like if u have that lib turn on that plugin) but then it isn't probably worth it because enabling right pligins is 1 min of editing anyway
_______________________________________________ collectd mailing list collectd@verplant.org http://mailman.verplant.org/listinfo/collectd