Subject: Re: nore on disk stats
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles Hannum <Charles-Hannum@DESHAW.com>
Date: 11/14/1995 18:37:24
> primitives, 3) have enough things implemented, and 4) conform to an
> existing layout.
[...], but it does seem a bit gratuitous to limit the sort of
information you can get to the fairly limited set of things the IETF
saw fit to put into the common MIBs.
You're substituting `straightjacket us' for `conform'. For things
which don't fit in MIB II, we'd obviously have to extend the MIB
ourselves. There's a standard way to do this, and it's not a big
The other notion, though, of having the queries go to an snmpd, or
something like one, still seems rather bad,
As I said, this can be optional, but we should definitely have the
ability of doing remote queries.
and Jason has made the
interesting point that you can't run netstat or whatever on a kernel
dump if it uses sysctl(), and one does need to be able to do such things...
First of all, that's an argument for why we should do nothing, and I
think it's fairly clear that's not a viable option.
Secondly, Jason's point is not necessarily true. One could imagine
designing a tree data structure in the kernel that could be groveled
manually if necessary. This seems fairly easy.
Lastly, you seem to be ignoring the point that creating a random new
interface does not solve this problem, and in fact creates a variety
of new problems.