Hi


LTTng had the 2019 plan to decouple tooling for container awareness, how is the progress on that?
https://archive.fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/containers_lttng/


As stated in page 18, LTTng is comprised of many components that expect a “monolitic” system. How about the future to containerize the LTTng?




Regards
Hai



 
 
 
------------------ Original ------------------
From: &nbsp;"Jonathan Rajotte-Julien"<jonathan.rajotte-julien@efficios.com&gt;;
Date: &nbsp;Tue, Jul 16, 2019 10:28 PM
To: &nbsp;"杨海"<hai.yang@magic-shield.com&gt;; 
Cc: &nbsp;"lttng-dev"<lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org&gt;; 
Subject: &nbsp;Re: [lttng-dev] Pros and Cons of LTTng

&nbsp;

Hi Hai,

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:19:38AM +0800, 杨海 wrote:
&gt; Obviously LTTng has much lower overhead compared to auditd, when we turn on
&gt; all system calls and use the same load. Is it true for both user space and
&gt; kernel space?

lttng-ust (userspace tracer) mostly use the same concept as the kerneltracer
(per-cpu ring buffers, binary output/CTF, delayed consumption of events, etc.).
There is some penalty for doing things in userspace since we need some
information from the kernel for each tracepoint hit (e.g the current cpu
number). But again most of these hot paths are quite optimized.

In any case I encourage you to try it out on your workload and lttng fit your
needs.

If you do not find a particular feature in the doc [1], do not hesitate to contact
this mailing list for more information.

&gt;So far I haven't seen any report compare LTTng and auditd,
&gt; anyone knows?

I do not remember any conversation on this topic. After reading a bit on auditd,
lttng might be a good replacement depending on your constraints and needs.

[1] https://lttng.org/docs/v2.10/

Cheers
-- 
Jonathan Rajotte-Julien
EfficiOS