David and Poul-Henning,
On 11/10/2014 10:34 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
--------
In message <647BB61DCE1F4679A45CD5C1DB1FE963@Alta>, "David J Taylor" writes:
I want to
be able to monitor a number of servers from a central monitoring point
(which might not even be running NTP), and using ntpq with its different
options is, for me, an ideal way to do that.
First of all, I'm focusing on the client software right now.
That said: It goes without saying that monitoring servers is a
different ball-game than monitoring clients.
And no, I still don't like the ntpq stuff, because it cannot express
the kind of things you'll want to monitor on a server, if you are
serious about running it:
How many clients report us as their REFID (is there something
horribly wrong in a firewall somewhere ?)
How many satelites does my GPS see ?
And so on...
How I'll doing the monitoring once I get to the server software
remains to be seen, but it is very likely to involve a CLI interface
and possibly a shared memory state
Pretty much like Varnish
... feel free to wonder why ? :-)
I think it is fair to consider that over time, we need to revisit how
things was designed and make changes. It might be better to run a
separate daemon for the monitoring protocol, and it could be providing
the traditional monitoring protocol or something new, or both.
Monitoring as such is an important task, and some of the NTP clients
might be servers in other contexts, and then it makes sense to monitor
that they got their NTP time into shape. There is however many ways to
slice that fish.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
