Please find below update FS https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Monitoring+VR+services
Thanks, Jayapal On 05-Oct-2013, at 6:54 PM, Santhosh Edukulla <santhosh.eduku...@citrix.com> wrote: > A shell script can be used. Few thoughts below: > > 1. Collect the process id of all daemons you wanted to monitor using "pidof" > of command and then use "kill" command to check if the pid you got is valid. > Using kill we can send a signal 0, then check the status using echo $? . For > sending a notification use linux syslog call ( man 3 syslogd) or "logger" > command to send to syslog. If wanted to send email then you may also have to > look for firewall not allowing outbound smtp port communiation. Even for snmp > this holds same( i mean if any blocking through firewall rules ). Using > syslog may be good as it by default exposes various debug log levels through > its api call. > > Now, to keep the monitor script up always up and runninig. Keep the monitor > script run continuosly through cron or at at regular\scheduled intervals. > This way even if monitor script goes down, the next xth interval, it is up > again. > > With this there is a catch though, we may got multiple pids for a given > daemon provided if there are multiple daemons spawned by same\multiple > applications, if this scenario is not common then its ok, otherwise we may > have to track it differently maintaining state of each spawned daemon and see > if it exists. If multiple applications launch the same daemon, you may also > wanted to say its application which got killed. EX: A launched httpd, and > during its exit logic, it is killing all daemons it launched, then you may > wanted to add A is not available, rather than just http is not available. > > > 2. Using netstat command : Check for available, listening and active ports > on local host, provided all the daemons you wanted to monitor are running on > "standard" ports or if we know the listening ports of those deamons to be > monitored. Again, this script can be added through cron\at to be scheduled to > run x units, if it gets killed the next x units after the monitor script is > up again. > > Also, there could be many other approaches as well. > > > Thanks! > Santhosh > ________________________________________ > From: Jayapal Reddy Uradi [jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com] > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 5:17 AM > To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Cc: <us...@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Service monitoring tool in virtual router > > Hi, > > +users list > If any one is already using any tools for monitoring then please share your > ideas. > Also share the cases where you experienced service crashes. > > Thanks, > Jayapal > > On 05-Oct-2013, at 4:12 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> Well just make sure that your script is resilient to its own crashes as >> well. >> >> On 10/4/13 1:59 AM, "Jayapal Reddy Uradi" <jayapalreddy.ur...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am planning to write script utility to monitor processes and restart on >>> the event of failure. It will also logs the events. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jayapal >>> >>> On 02-Oct-2013, at 3:25 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote: >>> >>>> supervisord maybe? >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: "Chiradeep Vittal" <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:45:56 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Service monitoring tool in virtual router >>>> >>>> Got it. Any other OSS tool out there similar to monit? >>>> >>>> On 10/1/13 8:24 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chiradeep Vittal >>>>> <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Let me restate my objection to anything AGPL. >>>>> People are largely comfortable with GPLv2 software - Linux is >>>>> ubiquitous. Many legal departments routinely prohibit GPLv3 software >>>>> (we actually saw this when CS was GPLv3 licensed.) But the Affero GPL >>>>> license is anathema in many corporate environments, and by forcing it >>>>> on folks in the default System VM I fear it will hurt adoption of >>>>> CloudStack. >>>>> >>>>> --David >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
