This is the mail archive of the systemtap@sourceware.org mailing list for the systemtap project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Anyone tried SystemTap with the latest RHEL5 Beta refresh


On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:37:34 EST, "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> > fche wrote:
> > [...]
> > >Unfortunately, other customers prefer that systemtap's loose
> > >dependencies (particularly, the kernel-debuginfo) not be installed by
> > >default, even if they choose an "install everything" option at the
> > >anaconda screens.  [..]
> 
> varap wrote:
> 
> > O.k, before i think of a way to satisfy both the needs i need to
> > understand the objection of the other group.
> 
> > The objection of other customers to not to install debuginfo package is
> > it because of wasted disk space due to large size of debuginfo package
> > or time to install or something else.
> 
> All those, plus the manual way in which RHEL debuginfo packages are at
> present published.
> 
> > I am assuming kernel debuginfo is considered a dependency for
> > SystemTap, am I right?
> 
> It is a loose dependency, in that the RPM does not list it as such
> (any more), and that it is theoretically possible to run some scripts
> without kprobes, and thus without dwarf data.
> 
> > What is the point of installing a package that doesn't work due to
> > lack of dependencies?
> 
> Among other reasons, it simplifies the task of the person overseeing
> an initial installation.  They may not want systemtap as such, merely
> use the "everything that is on this CD" option as a time-saver.

Um, okay, when I'm dealing with a customer issue, the *last* thing I
can get permission for is to install additional packages to debug
a problem.  If systemtap isn't usable on enterprise kernels right
out of the box at all installations, it is going to be *seriously*
hampered in terms of real marketplace adoption.

It seems like this should be more of an opt-out installation than an
opt-in - otherwise no one will opt-in until they've had to suffer
through some debug situations.

I know these things are tricky but what percentage of the overall
install footprint is the kernel debuginfo?  Aren't we talking mostly
about Enterprise configurations here?  People that often have a
Terrabyte of storge on a single blade?  The major value of SystemTap
is to save time in debugging customer environments.  If finding, installing,
?configuring? SystemTap are added to the complexity of deployment, we
are not going to save near as much time.  :(

gerrit


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]