Open Stack

Rob,


> This is of limited value to my business due to the GPL license -- so my
> company's lawyers tell me.  I will be unable to take advantage of what
> looks to be a solid solution from what I can see of Zabbix.  Are there any
> risks to Fuel (open source contamination) from this approach?  I doubt it
> but I want to make sure you are considering this.


Zabbix is GPL 2.0, however the impact of this license is only when
developing against its source. Using a GPL program through its standard
interfaces does not pull in any of the license requirements that your legal
team may be upset with. (AGPL is different story). Also GPL programs are
used throughout the base Linux operating system.

In some cases we may modify packages (including GPL ones), their source is
provided and can be found at [1]

In the scope of fuel, we configure Zabbix through standard interfaces with
our puppet manifests which are Apache 2.0 [2]

[1] https://review.fuel-infra.org/
[2]
https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-library/tree/master/deployment/puppet/zabbix

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Rob Basham <robbyb at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Rob Basham
>
> Cloud Systems Software Architecture
> 971-344-1999
>
>
> Bartosz Kupidura <bkupidura at mirantis.com> wrote on 11/25/2014 05:21:59 AM:
>
> > From: Bartosz Kupidura <bkupidura at mirantis.com>
> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > Date: 11/25/2014 05:26 AM
> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [FUEL] Zabbix in HA mode
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Im working on Zabbix implementation which include HA support.
> >
> > Zabbix server should be deployed on all controllers in HA mode.
> >
> > Currently we have dedicated role 'zabbix-server', which does not support
> more
> > than one zabbix-server. Instead of this we will move monitoring
> > solution (zabbix),
> > as an additional component.
> >
> > We will introduce additional role 'zabbix-monitoring', assigned to
> > all servers with
> > lowest priority in serializer (run puppet after every other roles)
> > when zabbix is
> > enabled.
> > 'Zabbix-monitoring' role will be assigned automatically.
> >
> > When zabbix component is enabled, we will install zabbix-server on
> > all controllers
> > in active-backup mode (pacemaker+haproxy).
> >
> > In next stage, we can allow users to deploy zabbix-server on dedicated
> node OR
> > on controllers for performance reasons.
> > But for now we should force zabbix-server to be deployed on controllers.
> >
> > BP is in initial phase, but code is ready and working with Fuel 5.1.
> > Now im checking if it works with master.
> >
> > Any comments are welcome!
>
> This is of limited value to my business due to the GPL license -- so my
> company's lawyers tell me.  I will be unable to take advantage of what
> looks to be a solid solution from what I can see of Zabbix.  Are there any
> risks to Fuel (open source contamination) from this approach?  I doubt it
> but I want to make sure you are considering this.
>
> >
> > BP link: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/zabbix-ha
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Bartosz Kupidura
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Andrew
Mirantis
Ceph community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150105/518469d6/attachment.html>