Open Stack

Even one additional hardware node required to host the Fuel master is seen
by many users as excessive. Unless you can come up with an architecture
that adds HA capability to Fuel without increasing its hardware footprint
by 2 more nodes, it's just not worth it.

The only operational aspect of the Fuel master node that you don't want to
lose even for a short while is logging. You'd be better off redirecting
OpenStack environments' logs to a dedicated highly available logging server
(which, of course, you already have in your environment), and deal with
Fuel master node failures by restoring it from backups.

On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Anton Zemlyanov <azemlyanov at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Monitoring of the Fuel master's disk space is the special case. I really
> wonder why Fuel master have no HA option, disk overflow can be predicted
> but many other failures cannot. HA is a solution of the 'single point of
> failure' problem.
>
> The current monitoring recommendations (
> http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/logging_monitoring.html)
> are based on analyzing logs and manual checks, that are rather reactive way
> of fixing problems. Zabbix is quite good for preventing failures that are
> predictable but for the abrupt problems Zabbix just reports them 'post
> mortem'.
>
> The only way to remove the single failure point is to implement
> redundancy/HA
>
> Anton
>
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski <
> pkaminski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> In extension to my comment in this bug [1] I'd like to discuss the
>> possibility of adding Fuel master node monitoring. As I wrote in the
>> comment, when disk is full it might be already too late to perform any
>> action since for example Nailgun could be down because DB shut itself down.
>> So we should somehow warn the user that disk is running low (in the UI and
>> fuel CLI on stderr for example) before it actually happens.
>>
>> For now the only meaningful value to monitor would be disk usage -- do
>> you have other suggestions? If not then probably a simple API endpoint with
>> statvfs calls would suffice. If you see other usages of this then maybe it
>> would be better to have some daemon collecting the stats we want.
>>
>> If we opted for a daemon, then I'm aware that the user can optionally
>> install Zabbix server although looking at blueprints in [2] I don't see
>> anything about monitoring Fuel master itself -- is it possible to do?
>> Though the installation of Zabbix though is not mandatory so it still
>> doesn't completely solve the problem.
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1371757
>> [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/monitoring-system
>>
>> Przemek
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141105/c6e33b3e/attachment-0001.html>