Using SNMP for alert notification is not a bad idea though. I don't see why we can't do that instead of posting to the management server. This is specifically referring to the second part of the proposal. Why reinvent that part of it?
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:28 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Service monitoring tool in virtual router > > SNMP wouldn't restart a failed process nor would it generate alerts. It is > simply too generic for the requirements outlined here. The proposal does > not talk about modifying monit, just using it. That wouldn't trigger the AGPL. > I think the idea is to have a tight monitoring loop that scales: so executing > the > monitoring loop in-situ makes sense. > > > On 9/25/13 9:53 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > >On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi > ><jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Currently in virtual router there is no way to recover and notify if > >>some service goes down unexpectedly. > >> > >> This feature is about monitoring all the services rendered by the > >>virtual router, ensure that the services are running through the life > >>time of the VR. > >> > >> On service failure: > >> 1. Generate an alert and event indicating failure 2. Restart the > >> service > >> > >> Services to be monitored: > >> DHCP, DNS, haproxy, password server etc. > >> > >> As part of monitoring there are two activities > >> > >> 1. One is monitoring the services in VR and log the events. Using > >>monit for monitoring services 2. Second part is pushing alerts from > >>router to MS server. Thinking on POST the logs to web server in MS. > >> > >> I will be updating more details and FS in this thread. > >> > >> I created enhancement bug for this. > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4736 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jayapal > > > >So several things - why not make this via SNMP? Query processes, and > >many other things. This should be relatively simple, is well known, can > >be locked down (or could be monitored for many other things by external > >monitoring packages) and is the defacto standard for monitoring hosts. > >Second - monit is Affero GPL licensed - which is a cat-x license. > >While I expect that we would merely use this and not do any hacking on > >it - I think its inclusion might be a surprise (and forbidden in many > >environments) to our users > > > >--David
