On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > While we generally try to avoid supporting too many different formats > and protocols in systemd, and only support those we really know we can > support for good and make work well, and where we know they have a > strong future I think "systemd-analyze" being primarily an analysis tool > and not being part of the usual system management code paths would > benefit from different output formats, even if those might be slightly > more exotic. I have no experience with HAR and it's not obvious how this > applies to systemd-analyze, but if it has nice tools that can process it > I am all for it.
HAR is quickly becoming the standard for profiling dumps from loading web pages. It's built into Firebug and Chrome, possibly others, too. The main application it has to systemd is first-class support for displaying the interplay between parallel and serial tasks in support of achieving various stages that depend on completion of other components. We'd have to fudge some of the HTTP-centric fields, but the visualization tools would be worth it. The basic and multiuser targets are, from my perspective, analogous to web pages reaching the readable/interactive stage and, later, the fully loaded stage. I'll see if I can get something demo together rather than making the abstract case. > BTW, "systemctl dot" can generate dot files, but it's not as useful as > one might hope, since the networks are just too massive. (Thinking about > it, if we now have systemd-analyze in C we really should move > systemctl's dot command there too.) Agreed. That's part of why I stopped arguing for DOT after giving it some thought. -- David Strauss | da...@davidstrauss.net | +1 512 577 5827 [mobile] _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
