From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew.McDermott@windriver.com (McDermott, Andrew)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:11:16 +0000
Subject: [lttng-dev] status of lttng top
In-Reply-To: <50858BF9.705@efficios.com> (Julien Desfossez's message of
	"Mon,	22 Oct 2012 14:10:01 -0400")
References: <7F632A9222059A42AF70FCB7965774AA20627EAB@ALA-MBB.corp.ad.wrs.com>
	<507389DE.4000204@efficios.com>
	<7F632A9222059A42AF70FCB7965774AA20854D6F@ALA-MBB.corp.ad.wrs.com>
	<50858BF9.705@efficios.com>
Message-ID: <7F632A9222059A42AF70FCB7965774AA20860D77@ALA-MBB.corp.ad.wrs.com>


Hi,

> On 22/10/12 07:00 AM, McDermott, Andrew wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> LTTngTop is still work in progress and will remain that way for a long
>>> time, but the version in the PPA (or in the master branch in git) is
>>> perfectly usable for offline traces (traces recorded and replayed
>>> through LTTngTop).
>>>
>>> The "live" branch is more experimental and requires patches in both
>>> Babeltrace and Lttng-tools (all documented in the README-LIVE file), but
>>> it worked at the time of Plumbers, I didn't have much time since then to
>>> rebase the branches.
>>>
>>> I am waiting for the release of Lttng-tools 2.1 (currently in RC) before
>>> merging those patches. After these patches are integrated, LTTngTop will
>>> be able to work live without any modifications, so directly reading
>>> traces in memory shared with the tracer.
>> 
>> Thanks for this info.
>> 
>> Right now my interest is with the live streaming; we have a use case
>> where the live streaming is really the only practical solution.
>> 
>> Very roughly, would you expect the RC series to conclude this year, or
>> (early) next year?
>
> Just to clarify, are you interested in live network trace reading or
> live in-memory reading ?
> The patches I was talking about are for in-memory trace reading.

So I guess I don't understand enough of the low-level detail here.  What
I was interested in was being able to consume events, maybe periodically
(1 /s), from a trace written by another process on the same machine.  I
guess that would fall under in-memory trace reading.

-- 
andy