Re: [Ganglia-developers] Lets discuss the wish-list and make 3.1.0 happen (was:Re: [Ganglia-general] 4T limit on memory?)

[Bernard L. <be...@va...>]

Hi Brad:

On 10/30/07, Brad Nicholes <BNI...@no...> wrote:

> I haven't looked at the 4T issue close enough to know whether it is just a metric problem or a core gmond problem (or both).  When I say 'core', I am referring to gmond itself which does not include metric.c.  I consider metric.c to be outside of gmond core.  So if there isn't an issue passing a huge number through gmond core (ie. the internal variables can handle a huge number) then I do believe that the issue can be handled by implementing either a C or python module that can handle 4T.  Otherwise, we will have to make changes to gmond 3.1.x core as well.  At the very least, a 4T number can be represented by a smaller factor which would allow a suitable solution to be fully implemented in a module.  Of course if the community wants a 3.0.x solution, that would be a completely different patch.

Okay -- let's put this on the TODO list.

> Total agreement.  I think that we have a long list of enhancements for several 3.1.x releases.  I don't believe that they all have to be done before we release 3.1.0.  Obviously we will need to identify any enhancements that will break compatibility and make sure that those are included in 3.1.0.  Then moving forward, other new features can come when they come.  I would like to see the development community (and anybody else interested) get together soon either virtually or physically to discuss the wish list and determine what *must* be done for a 3.1.0 release.  I am very interested in seeing a 3.1.0 release in the very near future.  When can we make this happen?

Matt mentioned that GroundWork Open Source has some monies that could
be used to fly some developers to the Bay Area and host a meetup -- I
wonder if that offer is still on the plate (Matt?) -- I am somewhat
busy for the next two months (SuperComputing, etc.) so I think the
earliest I can attend a meeting would be January.  However, if the
schedule is right, I could potentially fit it in November/December
(the meeting will probably be a day or two I would think).

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Bernard