[Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design

[John Sanda]

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16 Mar 2015, at 20:07, John Sanda wrote:
> 
>> For monitoring purposes, do we really need to write an agent? Should 
>> we just leverage existing tools/libraries? I previously cited three
> 
> (Re)using all those tools is fine and certainly desired, but the issue 
> is less
> about what some random tool uses to collect metrics inside an app, but
> rather how to access and transport them. Using JMX like in the good ol'
> days is certainly a way. Or using the Jolokia Java agent. But still 
> someone
> needs to talk to them.

Accessing and transporting the data is already answered to a large degree. That is the primary reason I brought it up in the first place. Another aspect to consider is that different types of monitoring agents lend themselves better to different scenarios. I think that focusing more on integration with existing agents/collectors gives us a better chance of being able to use the best tool for a particular situation.

> 
> Writing a subsystem for inside Wildfly to actively report/submit data
> is in fact an (embedded) agent. Not a general purpose one.
> 
> We already have converters from collectd, gmon and a few other
> protocols into Hawkular(-metrics). So yes, they should all be allowable
> as input.
> 
> And then we will have more specialized use cases that most probably go 
> much
> further than just submitting some metrics to the Hawkular(-metrics) 
> server.
> In this case some more specialized code may be needed too.
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev