[rrd-developers] Re: Architecture-dependent RRD file format

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 08:36:29AM +0100, Tobias Oetiker wrote:

> Today Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This doesn't sound like too much work, though it would require
> > breaking backward compatibility.  If the xdr routines are used for
> > RPC, they should be pretty quick, and the code in glibc looks
> > simple, so the performance impact should not be too great.
> >
> > Are there other changes already in progress which will break
> > backward compatibility?  That is, will the rrd_version be
> > incremented?  If so, I would be willing to do some work on
> > implementing an xdr-based format.
> 
> well there are features in the development tree which break backward
> compatibility but they are done in a way, so that if they are not
> used, still the old format is used ...
> 
> I would imagine an implementation where usage of xdr is optional ...
> if rrdtool is used in an embeded system it does not make sense to
> require xdr ... even worse it may not be available on all platforms
> ...
> 
> I could see xdr even going into the 1.0.x tree if it was done in a way
> where the format was recogniced from the magick cookie in the rrd
> header ...

How about creating a different cookie for float_cookie to indicate that
the RRD is architecture-independent?  At configure time, we could check
whether the system has xdr routines, and if so, compile in support for
architecture-independent RRDs (in which xdr would be used).

-- 
 - mdz

--
Unsubscribe mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Help        mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=help
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/rrd-developers
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi