Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Sandy Walsh <sandy.walsh at rackspace.com>wrote:

> Hey y'all,
>
> I've had a little thorn in my claw on this topic for a while and thought
> I'd ask the larger group.
>
> I applaud the efforts of the people working on the alarming additions to
> Ceilometer, but I've got concerns that we're packaging things the wrong
> way.
>
> I fear we're making another Zenoss/Nagios with Ceilometer. It's trying
> to do too much.
>
> The current trend in the monitoring work (#monitoringlove) is to build
> your own stack from a series of components. These components take in
> inputs, process them and spit out outputs.
> Collectors/Transformers/Publishers. This is the model CM is built on.
>
> Making an all-singing-all-dancing monolithic monitoring package is the
> old way of building these tools. People want to use best-of-breed
> components for their monitoring stack. I'd like to be able to use
> reimann.io for my stream manager, diamond for my collector, logstash for
> my parser, etc. Alarming should just be another consumer.
>
> CM should do one thing well. Collect data from openstack, store and
> process them, and make them available to other systems via the API or
> publishers. That's all. It should understand these events better than
> any other product out there. It should be able to produce meaningful
> metrics/meters from these events.
>
> Alarming should be yet another consumer of the data CM produces. Done
> right, the If-This-Then-That nature of the alarming tool could be
> re-used by the orchestration team or perhaps even scheduling.
> Intertwining it with CM is making the whole thing too complex and rigid
> (imho).
>
> CM should be focused on extending our publishers and input plug-ins.
>
> I'd like to propose that alarming becomes its own project outside of
> Ceilometer. Or, at the very least, its own package, external of the
> Ceilometer code base. Perhaps it still lives under the CM moniker, but
> packaging-wise, I think it should live as a separate code base.
>

It is currently implemented as a pair of daemons (one to monitor the alarm
state, another to send the notifications). Both daemons use a ceilometer
client to talk to the REST API to consume the sample data or get the alarm
details, as required. It looks like alarms are triggered by sending RPC
cast message, and that those in turn trigger the webhook invocation. That
seems pretty loosely coupled, as far as the runtime goes. Granted, it's
still in the main ceilometer code tree, but that doesn't say anything about
how the distros will package it.

I'll admit I haven't been closely involved in the development of this
feature, so maybe my quick review of the code missed something that is
bringing on this sentiment?

Doug


>
> Please, change my view. :)
>
> -S
>
> Side note: I might even argue that the statistical features of CM are
> going a little too far. My only counter-argument is that statistics are
> the only way to prevent us from sending large amounts of data over the
> wire for post-processing. But that's a separate discussion.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130801/b5467db9/attachment.html>