Re: [Ganglia-developers] More 2.5.8 stuff. Is it time for 2.6 ?

2004-11-30 Thread Matt Massie
OK. That makes sense. The problem is now, that we/I promoted some formerly arch-private metrics to the global state and that they are now in different positions in the array. This would explain why Linux/2.5.4 and Linux/2.5.8 now conflict. roger. if any new metrics were added to the end of the

Re: [Ganglia-developers] More 2.5.8 stuff. Is it time for 2.6 ?

2004-11-30 Thread Martin Knoblauch
> > just as an example. as metric we're added they were put at the end > of > the array and backward compatibility was maintained. older gmond > would > just ignore data with an index number greater than they knew about > but > all the other index numbers where exactly the same. > > then we

[Ganglia-developers] 2.5.8 on FreeBSD

2004-11-30 Thread Brooks Davis
FYI, I've verified that the latest ganglia snapshot works on FreeBSD 5 (actually 6-CURRENT, but they are mostly the same at the moment.) I did notice one small bug. If /etc/gmetad.conf doens't exist, you get a nice warning followed by a core dump instead of an exit. -- Brooks -- Any statement

Re: [Ganglia-developers] More 2.5.8 stuff. Is it time for 2.6 ?

2004-11-30 Thread Matt Massie
sure you did not want to say "MICRO" here ? oops. yeh micro. MICRO again :-) oops. yeh micro again. apparently, this is not completely true. As I wrote before, the current 2.5.8 gmond for Linux (adding cpu_wio and cpu_intr/sintr) does not live well together with older gmonds on the sa

Re: [Ganglia-developers] More 2.5.8 stuff. Is it time for 2.6 ?

2004-11-30 Thread Martin Knoblauch
Hi Matt, --- Matt Massie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just altered our configure.in script (you'll need to do a cvs > update) > to ensure that we have less versioning confusion in the future. Here > is > the section of variables that must be altered for each release... > > > ## BEGIN RELEA