Hi Matin, We haven't outdone TCF yet :-)
The reality is that streaming won't be available in LTTng before v2.1 later this year so RSE+SSH solution was deemed sufficient for the tracer control. It also didn't require an extra component (the agent) to be deployed on the target (remote). Trace data is simply transferred to the host over the SSH connection (using scp I believe but I would have to dig in the code a bit to confirm). As for the upcoming streaming, my understanding is that the tracer guys haven't settled yet on how to implement it but are considering having an internal component (the consumer daemon) piping the live data through a separate socket (using SSH-like encryption). It definitely sounds reasonable. We'll tackle this one when we get there. Regards, /fc On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Oberhuber, Martin < martin.oberhu...@windriver.com> wrote: > Thanks J**** > > ** ** > > One question, out of curiosity:**** > > ** ** > > I understand that the value of TCF is that it supports live streaming of > trace data, whereas with RSE + SSH you need to do offline collection and > upload.**** > > ** ** > > Or have you gone beyond that, and provide any finer command & control over > RSE + SSH which TCF can’t do for you ?**** > > What other advantages are there in using RSE+SSH only ?**** > > What are you missing in TCF + Target Explorer to make it really valuable > for you ?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks**** > > martin**** > > ** ** > > *From:* linuxtools-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto: > linuxtools-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] *On Behalf Of *Francois Chouinard > *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2012 9:50 PM > *To:* Linux Tools developer discussions > *Subject:* Re: [linuxtools-dev] Fwd: [tcf-dev] TCF 1.0 and Juno M7**** > > ** ** > > Hi Jeff,**** > > ** ** > > I never worried too much about this since we always had a way out. > Besides, only fools under-estimate Martin :-)**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for the update.**** > > ** ** > > /fc**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Jeff Johnston <jjohn...@redhat.com> wrote: > **** > > Hi Francois, > > Martin has seemed to appease David Williams and has created a TCF > b3aggrcon file in org.eclipse.juno.build. He has also created a juno > milestones repo which I have switched Linux Tools to use. We should be ok > and we validate fine against it. > > -- Jeff J.**** > > > > On 05/04/2012 02:59 PM, Francois Chouinard wrote:**** > > Forwarding a (slightly edited) reply from tcf-dev about the usage of TCF > in LTTng. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------**** > > From: *Francois Chouinard* <fchouin...@gmail.com > <mailto:fchouin...@gmail.com>> > Date: Tue, May 1, 2012 at 7:47 PM > Subject: Re: [tcf-dev] TCF 1.0 and Juno M7**** > > To: TCF Development <tcf-...@eclipse.org <mailto:tcf-...@eclipse.org>> > > > Hi, > > TCF is required for one feature of the legacy part of LTTng. If anything > should be removed from the Linux Tools delivery it is either that single > feature or (worst case) the legacy LTTng (pre-2.0) > > For the newer version, also delivered in Juno, we rely solely on > RSE/SSH. However, the jury is still out if we will eventually be using > TCF at all with the new version (but certainly not in the Juno time frame). > > Regards. > > -- > Francois > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev**** > > > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Francois**** > > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > > -- Francois
_______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
