Talk:Features/LTTng

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
Various packages, including glibc, already contain systemtap markers.  Can LTTng use these markers?  Should we expect requests to add similar (duplicated) LTTng markers?  Or requests to convert systemtap markers to LTTng markers? --[[User:Mitr|Mitr]] 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 
Various packages, including glibc, already contain systemtap markers.  Can LTTng use these markers?  Should we expect requests to add similar (duplicated) LTTng markers?  Or requests to convert systemtap markers to LTTng markers? --[[User:Mitr|Mitr]] 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== roadmap ==
 +
 +
What is the planned long-term roadmap with this, systemtap, and other tracing/performance frameworks? -- [[User:notting|notting]]

Revision as of 14:55, 27 July 2012

A few comments:

  • The kernel modules will not be include so the page should remove references to kernel tracing. If users don't have it working out of the box have to go to additional steps to enable that functionality it clearly isn't part of the Fedora feature.
    • Ok, I'll try to reword this part.
  • In the 'benefit' section, are you suggesting official Fedora packages be built with UST support?
    • Yes, that's what I'd suggest, if the package maintainer want to. --greenscientist
  • How does this compare with systemtap+uprobes that will be included in the kernel for F18? As far as I know, uprobes allows developers/users to do userspace tracing without rebuilding applications, whereas LTTng seems to require a rebuild for UST tracepoints. --jwboyer
    • You're right, Josh, there is overlap, but compiled-in UST is much faster to run tracing jobs than pre-v2.0 systemtap. Also, anything rebuilt with UST markers will also be probe-able with systemtap due to a helpful <sys/sdt.h> indirection.

in-distro users?

Is anything in the distro compiled with ust tracepoints, so the various viewers can be used out-of-the-box?

    • So far, I don't think so. (The packages were added only a couple of weeks ago)


Various packages, including glibc, already contain systemtap markers. Can LTTng use these markers? Should we expect requests to add similar (duplicated) LTTng markers? Or requests to convert systemtap markers to LTTng markers? --Mitr 10:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

roadmap

What is the planned long-term roadmap with this, systemtap, and other tracing/performance frameworks? -- notting