Peter Tribble wrote:
> OK, two problems crop up. The first is that 'global' isn't a terribly useful
> name. What's wrong with naming this 'statistics'?
Not sure if naming a kstat "statistics" is more meaningful.
> The second is that if you were to follow the naming scheme below then you
> can't
> have a rule called 'global'. There's going to be the possibility of a
> name collision
> with any name you choose.
Yes, that is true. But I guess it is OK to reserve "global"
or another name for a rule name.
> No, I wouldn't do it like this. I would have a kstat something like
>
> module: ilb instance: 1
> name: rule class: rulestat
> rulename
The kstat instance field normally has the following meaning, as
described in kstat_create(9F)
ks_instance The provider's instance number, as from
ddi_get_instance(9F). Modules which do not
have a meaningful instance number should use
0.
And there is only one instance of ILB in an IP stack.
There is really no meaningful instance number. Are you
suggesting to have a different instance number for each
rule? And I guess you also imply that it is not that
useful for an admin to be able to filter out kstats by name.
--
K. Poon.
kacheong.poon at sun.com
