Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

suggestions for improving strace command #2

Open
armijnhemel opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

suggestions for improving strace command #2

armijnhemel opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@armijnhemel
Copy link

For our paper we used the following strace options:

strace -e trace=file,process,dup,dup2,close,pipe,pipe2,fcntl -q -f -s 512

The -e option might be useful to reduce the amount of data that is stored. We actually stored quite a bit of data (512 bytes) per trace call. I don't clearly remember if that was too much or not, but since the paths in the Nix store can be quite long I think that's why ;-)

@pombredanne
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks!
I will have to check if 512 bytes is enough. I parse extensively the results, and a truncated output may results in rather unpredictable outputs. I also keep track of processes forks and dir changes and renames.... so limiting the syscalls traced is not a super easy, but doable task.

@armijnhemel
Copy link
Author

All the trace options mentioned will include that data :)

pombredanne pushed a commit that referenced this issue Oct 19, 2022
* Add PEP 517/518 pyproject.toml file
* Add setuptools_scm to handle versioning
* Add setup.py content to setup.cfg
* Update setup.py to act as a shim (so pip install -e works)

Addresses: #2

Signed-off-by: Steven Esser <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants