On 09/12/2012 09:11 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-09-12T09:01:05, Alan Robertson <al...@unix.sh> wrote:
>
>>> The status from these agents may feed into operations on other
>>> resources that are fully managed.
>> Understood.
>>
>> I believe it will care about those other agents - not these. It
>> shouldn't know about these, AFAIK.
> I guess then you're talking about a different effort from what
> Dejan, Yan, and I are investigating. (Since we need that status so that
> Pacemaker can restart the VM, if needed, for example.)
>
> (Our goal is also to reuse existing probes from other monitoring
> frameworks, not rewrite them.)
Well... Most monitors use software from somewhere else, but I didn't
know about your effort - so no, I wasn't talking about that effort -
although there is some similarity.
What I've heard from other folks using the other monitoring frameworks,
is that one of the biggest issues with Nagios for example is that the
monitoring agents aren't very reliable.
In spite of that, I've certainly given some thought to writing a Nagios
plugin for the LRM for my purposes.
--
Alan Robertson <al...@unix.sh> - @OSSAlanR
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me claim
from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
