Open Stack

Hello everyone,

Me and my team have been following this subject and similar ones related to Monitoring. IHMO, seems to be very logical to aggregate monitoring with Ceilometer. Others have been working on similar features, like ICC Lab: Nagios/Ceilometer Integration and SNMP Support

The best choice, is to enhance Ceilometer with monitoring features.

Are you planning on talking about this on following IRC meetings? For further discussion.

Best regards,
Paulo J. Nascimento Oliveira
http://about.me/pnascimento
Advanced Telecommunications and Networks Group - http://atnog.av.it.pt
Follow us - @ATNoG_ITAv


> From: Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Monitoring as a Service
> Date: 7 May 2014 09:57:38 GMT+1
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> 
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> I wanted to let this discussion develop a little before jumping in, as
> we've already had many circular debates about the cross-over between
> ceilometer and monitoring infrastructure in general.
> 
> Personally I'm in favor of the "big tent/broad church" interpretation of
> ceilometer's project mandate, and would welcome further development of
> our capabilities in this area (whether directly within the ceilometer
> code-tree itself, or within a parallel repo aligned with the Telemetry
> program).
> 
> In terms of furthering the discussion, unfortunately you've missed the
> boat in terms of securing a slot in the design summit next week in
> Atlanta (proposal deadline was April 20th, and the scheduling has all
> been finalized at this stage).
> 
> However, we do have a project pod space available for ad-hoc overflow
> sessions. I would suggest that we organize something on this theme
> after the main ceilometer track[1] has completed, say on the Thursday
> or Friday. Please reach out on IRC to discuss availability for this
> and we'll work out something around remote participation.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eoghan
> 
> [1] http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/overview/type/ceilometer
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I agree that this falls under the
>> Telemetry Program and I have moved the blueprint.
>> 
>> You can find it here:
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/monitoring-as-a-service
>> Wiki page: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/MaaS
>> Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MaaS
>> 
>>> I can go over the project with you as well as others that are interested.
>>> We would like to start working with other open-source developers. I'll
>>> also be at the Summit next week.
>> Roland,
>> 
>> I currently have no plans to be at the Summit next week. However, I
>> would be interested in exploring what you have already done and learn
>> from it.  Maybe we can schedule a meeting? You can always contact me on
>> IRC (aviau) or by e-mail at alexandre.viau at savoirfairelinux.com
>> 
>> For now, I think we should focus on the use cases. I invite all of you
>> to help us list them on the Etherpad.
>> 
>> Alexandre
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 14-05-05 12:00 PM, Hochmuth, Roland M wrote:
>>> Alexandre, Great timing on this question and I agree with your proposal. I
>>> work for HP and we are just about to open-source a project for Monitoring
>>> as a Service (MaaS), called "Jahmon". Jahmon is based on our
>>> customer-facing monitoring as a service solution and internal monitoring
>>> projects.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jahmon is a multi-tenant, highly performant, scalable, reliable and
>>> fault-tolerant monitoring solution that scales to service provider levels
>>> of metrics throughput. It has a RESTful API that is used for
>>> storing/querying metrics, creating compound alarms, querying alarm
>>> state/history, sending notifications and more.
>>> 
>>> I can go over the project with you as well as others that are interested.
>>> We would like to start working with other open-source developers. I'll
>>> also be at the Summit next week.
>>> 
>>> Regards --Roland
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/4/14, 1:37 PM, "John Dickinson" <me at not.mn> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> One of the advantages of the program concept within OpenStack is that
>>>> separate code projects with complementary goals can be managed under the
>>>> same program without needing to be the same codebase. The most obvious
>>>> example across every program are the "server" and "client" projects under
>>>> most programs.
>>>> 
>>>> This may be something that can be used here, if it doesn't make sense to
>>>> extend the ceilometer codebase itself.
>>>> 
>>>> --John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On May 4, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Denis Makogon <dmakogon at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello to All.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I also +1 this idea. As I can see, Telemetry program (according to
>>>>> Launchpad) covers the process of the infrastructure metrics (networking,
>>>>> etc) and in-compute-instances metrics/monitoring.
>>>>> So, the best option, I guess, is to propose add such great feature to
>>>>> Ceilometer. In-compute-instance monitoring will be the great value-add
>>>>> to upstream Ceilometer.
>>>>> As for me, it's a good chance to integrate well-known production ready
>>>>> monitoring systems that have tons of specific plugins (like Nagios etc.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Denis Makogon
>>>>> 
>>>>> воскресенье, 4 мая 2014 г. пользователь John Griffith написал:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/02/2014 05:17 AM, Alexandre Viau wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Everyone!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My name is Alexandre Viau from Savoir-Faire Linux.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have submited a Monitoring as a Service blueprint and need
>>>>> feedback.
>>>>>> Problem to solve: Ceilometer's purpose is to track and
>>>>> *measure/meter* usage information collected from OpenStack components
>>>>> (originally for billing). While Ceilometer is usefull for the cloud
>>>>> operators and infrastructure metering, it is not a *monitoring* solution
>>>>> for the tenants and their services/applications running in the cloud
>>>>> because it does not allow for service/application-level monitoring and
>>>>> it ignores detailed and precise guest system metrics.
>>>>>> Proposed solution: We would like to add Monitoring as a Service to
>>>>> Openstack
>>>>>> Just like Rackspace's Cloud monitoring, the new monitoring service -
>>>>> lets call it OpenStackMonitor for now -  would let users/tenants keep
>>>>> track of their ressources on the cloud and receive instant notifications
>>>>> when they require attention.
>>>>>> This RESTful API would enable users to create multiple monitors with
>>>>> predefined checks, such as PING, CPU usage, HTTPS and SMTP or custom
>>>>> checks performed by a Monitoring Agent on the instance they want to
>>>>> monitor.
>>>>>> Predefined checks such as CPU and disk usage could be polled from
>>>>> Ceilometer. Other predefined checks would be performed by the new
>>>>> monitoring service itself. Checks such as PING could be flagged to be
>>>>> performed from multiple sites.
>>>>>> Custom checks would be performed by an optional Monitoring Agent.
>>>>> Their results would be polled by the monitoring service and stored in
>>>>> Ceilometer.
>>>>>> If you wish to collaborate, feel free to contact me at
>>>>> alexandre.viau at savoirfairelinux.com
>>>>>> The blueprint is available here:
>>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+spec/monitoring-as-a-servi
>>>>> ce
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> I would prefer if monitoring capabilities was added to Ceilometer rather
>>>>> than adding yet-another project to deal with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What's the reason for not adding the feature to Ceilometer directly?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>> 
>>>>> ​I'd also be interested in the overlap between your proposal and
>>>>> Ceilometer.  It seems at first thought that it would be better to
>>>>> introduce the monitoring functionality in to Ceilometer and make that
>>>>> project more diverse as opposed to yet another project.​
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140507/a5641cba/attachment-0001.html>