[rrd-users] does rrdcached grok millisecond timestamps?

[Tobias Oetiker]

Hi Rick,

This is fixed in r2173

cheers
tobi

Today Rick Jones wrote:

> I'm working on getting my little utility communicating with an rrdcached
> and so I've added code to add the --daemon <path> to the argv passed in
> an rrd_update() call.  However, when I start my utility with it pointed
> at the rrdcached, I get error messages such as:
>
> 2011-05-11T13:04:39.353966-07:00 s132 ./sfstored[6363]:
> update_generic_counter_db() rrd_update() returned 'rrdcached: Cannot
> find timestamp in
> '1305144276.651:83:117:10000000000:1:3:482259330:2787704:1464022:124284676:0:0:0:645919723:1699360:437635:86:0:0:2'!'
>
> which I do not get when I do not attempt to use the rrdcached.  Looking
> at:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch/msg02670.html
>
> I see where that error message was added, and it appears the code is the
> same in 1.4.5:
>
>     /* make sure update time is always moving forward */
>     stamp = strtol(value, &eostamp, 10);
>     if (eostamp == value || eostamp == NULL || *eostamp != ':')
>     {
>       pthread_mutex_unlock(&cache_lock);
>       return send_response(sock, RESP_ERR,
>                            "Cannot find timestamp in '%s'!\n", value);
>     }
>     else if (stamp <= ci->last_update_stamp)
>
> The use of strtol() suggests that the rrdcached (at least up through and
> including 1.4.5) does not grok millisecond timestamps?  My guess is that
> the calls are hitting the '*eostamp != ":"' check and failing since it
> will be "." after the strtol() call.
>
> That seems to be further born-out by the definition of a cache_item:
>
> struct cache_item_s;
> typedef struct cache_item_s cache_item_t;
> struct cache_item_s
> {
>   char *file;
>   char **values;
>   size_t values_num;
>   time_t last_flush_time;
>   time_t last_update_stamp;
> #define CI_FLAGS_IN_TREE  (1<<0)
> #define CI_FLAGS_IN_QUEUE (1<<1)
>   int flags;
>   pthread_cond_t  flushed;
>   cache_item_t *prev;
>   cache_item_t *next;
> };
>
> where last_update_stamp is simply a time_t.  Am I correct in calling
> this a bug?
>
> happy benchmarking,
>
> rick jones
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrd-users mailing list
> rrd-users at lists.oetiker.ch
> https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-users
>
>

-- 
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch tobi at oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900