Hacker News new | more | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That would not be recalling correctly: SystemTap does that, and so does eBPF (via uprobes and kprobes).

A large problem with SystemTap is that it was developed in the open, and in the early days people were scared off with its kernel panics. SystemTap built a negative brand: first impressions matter. DTrace, however, was largely built before its public release, and with the help from many other engineers and test teams. People's first impressions with DTrace was something that was already awesome. Of course, there are other problems with SystemTap: its process of compiling code and loading kernel modules was always risker than an interpreter.

As for how eBPF compares: I summarized it last year http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for-linux...




> and in the early days people were scared off with its kernel panics.

It is ironic that to this day those kernel panics are associated with systemtap (the visible user interface) rather than the kernel (where the vast majority of the responsible bugs actually lay). But perceptions indeed matter, even erroneous ones.


Note for freshness that systemtap can also emit eBPF directly now. So kernel modules are the fastest & most powerful way, but not the only one.


Thanks. How does the stap language being compiled into kernel modules differ from an interpreter? Both seem to have a limited surface (unless you're doing C directly in systemtap)




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: