Send desktop-devel-list mailing list submissions to
desktop-devel-list gnome org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
desktop-devel-list-request gnome org
You can reach the person managing the list at
desktop-devel-list-owner gnome org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of desktop-devel-list digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Stefano Facchini)
2. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Maciej Piechotka)
3. Re: New libgtop maintainer (Stefano Facchini)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:03:24 +0200
From: Stefano Facchini <stefano facchini gmail com>
To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer
Message-ID: <1376222604 1041 5 camel localhost localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 (? la iotop)
* per process network usage (? la nethogs)
That said, a DBus service should be perfectly fine for these features.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:20:49 +0200
From: Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com>
To: Stefano Facchini <stefano facchini gmail com>
Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer
Message-ID: <1376223649 26340 7 camel localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 (? la iotop)
> * per process network usage (? 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.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 14:35:12 +0200
From: Stefano Facchini <stefano facchini gmail com>
To: Maciej Piechotka <uzytkownik2 gmail com>
Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
Subject: Re: New libgtop maintainer
Message-ID: <1376224512 25119 4 camel localhost localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Il giorno dom, 11/08/2013 alle 14.20 +0200, Maciej Piechotka ha scritto:
> 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 (? la iotop)
> > * per process network usage (? 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.
>
Yes you're right, when there's high disk activity dbus can be slow. I
was more thinking of network usage, because it's the only one I started
prototyping as DBus service :)
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
------------------------------
End of desktop-devel-list Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
***************************************************