<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 05/29/2012 07:58 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADb+p3TM1VV6M9+K-_6W5PvE5YVNd00LxnyBXo2pF7oWf5gMew@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Loic
Dachary <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:loic@enovance.com" target="_blank">loic@enovance.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 05/29/2012 05:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:<br>
> IIRC, the meters discussed in the wiki [1] are supposed
to show "delta" values (usage since the last time an event
was generated), although the "Alternate Gauge Design"
section discusses cumulative meters instead. The libvirt
pollsters we have now produce cumulative data, and it might
be complicated and error-prone to change them to compute the
deltas internally before generating events. On the other
hand, some of the other counters may be more complicated to
generate as cumulative values.<br>
><br>
> Rather than taking an either/or approach, I propose we
document for each counter whether it uses the delta or
cumulative approach. The API server can ask the meter plugin
for that piece of information when calculating the aggregate
value so that the caller does not have to keep track of the
rules for each meter.<br>
><br>
</div>
I tend to prefer using a gauge and I agree that documenting
what was preferred (gauge or delta) for a given meter /
counter is enough.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just to be clear, by "gauge" do you mean the cumulative
form of the counter?</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, I do ;-)<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>