Re: New libgtop maintainer

[Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com>]

On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 14:03 +0200, Stefano Facchini wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 11/08/2013 alle 06.45 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre ha
> scritto:
>
> > So, I wonder if it makes sense to stop generating libgtop and instead
> > just focus on a solid, easily understood codebase. I never really
> > understood why we had a client/daemon split, either; it doesn't seem
> > that we're doing anything too fancy on either side. Is it that we
> > require root for reading some of the files? Should we move to a system
> > DBus service instead?
>
> I think that root access is required if we want to implement monitoring
> of:
>   * per process disk activity (à la iotop)
>   * per process network usage (à la nethogs)
>
> That said, a DBus service should be perfectly fine for these features.

As a question - what about timeouts? Usually gnome-system-monitor is
useful when there is heavy I/O, CPU usage or swapping and in such cases
dbus timeouts can and do happen.

Moving into more complex area - since application handling on Linux
moves to systemd+cgroups would it make sense to get information per
cgroup rather then per-process (+ nice user-readable name such as "Web"
or "Epiphany" rather then "/usr/libexec/WebKitPluginProcess")? Possibly
something less readable for systems without cgroup-like session
handling.