[lttng-dev] "lttng enable-channel --tracefile-size" bug

[John Smith]

thanks, just one more question, I would think that it would be more
efficient to have multiple sub-buffers writing to a file versus one
sub-buffer to one file,. Of course, when the file gets overwritten
(rolled-over by the tracefile-count option)  multiple sub-buffers are lost.
Do you have any use case recommendation?
John

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez at efficios.com>
wrote:

> > Julien,
> > thanks, I was mislead by the 2.7 documentation saying:
> > "...parameters
> > of |enable-channel| are |--tracefile-size|and |--tracefile-count|, which
> > respectively limit the size of each trace file and the their count for a
> > given channel. "
> > In this case the tracefile-size option should be removed, will it become
> > useful in the future releases or has a more subtle use?
>
> No, the tracefile-size options does what it says, the limitation is that
> the smallest unit it can work with is the subbuf-size. So the smallest
> tracefile size you can have is the subbuf-size.
>
> If you are using 4k subbuffers and you limit the size of the tracefiles
> to 4M, then you will have at most 1000 full packets in each tracefile.
> But if you have subbuffers of 8M, the smallest tracefile size you can
> have is 8M.
>
> Julien
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20160602/bbb45a10/attachment.html>