Hi Kevin, Yesterday kevin brintnall wrote:
> >> - "FLUSH" the file, then operate directly on it (race condition with new > >> updates?) > > > > tis will have odd effects for people who assume update to be > > working remotely ... > > True. This is probably a better temporary solution: > > On "updatev", the server flushes an pending updates, then calls another > rrd_update_r() to produce the output for "updatev". It doesn't perform as > well due to the frequent flushes, but it's an easy start. that sounds reasonable ... > > I would like to see this in 1.5 ... the 1.4rc does not seem to be > > causing much of an echo, so I guess I will be releasing 1.4.0 > > sometime next week. > > Is it worth trying the above simplified "updatev" support in 1.4? I don't > know how common "updatev" is among users... I don't know a use-case where people mix update and updatev ... as updatev uses the rrd_info method, to return its data, it may be a wee bit complex to make this work across rrdcached, so from my point of view, a complaint from rrdtool updatev when called with the daemon enabled would be all that is required ... cheers tobi -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers