Open Stack

Ok, I'll try to summarize what will be done in the near future for 
Undercloud monitoring.

1. There will be Central agent running on the same host(hosts once the 
central agent horizontal scaling is finished) as Ironic
2. It will have SNMP pollster, SNMP pollster will be able to get list of 
hosts and their IPs from Nova (last time I
     checked it was in Nova) so it can poll them for stats. Hosts to 
poll can be also defined statically in config file.
3. It will have IPMI pollster, that will poll Ironic API, getting list 
of hosts and a fixed set of stats (basically everything
     that we can get :-))
4. Ironic will also emit messages (basically all events regarding the 
hardware) and send them directly to Ceilometer collector

Does it seems to be correct? I think that is the basic we must have to 
have Undercloud monitored. We can then build on that.

Kind regards,
Ladislav

On 11/20/2013 09:22 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19 2013, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
>
>> If there is a fixed set of information (eg, temp, fan speed, etc) that
>> ceilometer will want,
> Sure, we want everything.
>
>> let's make a list of that and add a driver interface
>> within Ironic to abstract the collection of that information from physical
>> nodes. Then, each driver will be able to implement it as necessary for that
>> vendor. Eg., an iLO driver may poll its nodes differently than a generic
>> IPMI driver, but the resulting data exported to Ceilometer should have the
>> same structure.
> I like the idea.
>
>> An SNMP agent doesn't fit within the scope of Ironic, as far as I see, so
>> this would need to be implemented by Ceilometer.
> We're working on adding pollster for that indeed.
>
>> As far as where the SNMP agent would need to run, it should be on the
>> same host(s) as ironic-conductor so that it has access to the
>> management network (the physically-separate network for hardware
>> management, IPMI, etc). We should keep the number of applications with
>> direct access to that network to a minimum, however, so a thin agent
>> that collects and forwards the SNMP data to the central agent would be
>> preferable, in my opinion.
> We can keep things simple by having the agent only doing that polling I
> think. Building a new agent sounds like it will complicate deployment
> again.
>