Re: [Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design

I don't think we are on the same page regarding the focus of the project/product. Hawkular is targeted toward Red Hat Middleware management, for infrastructure management there are gazillion other solutions. We need "some" basic infrastructure management, for those basic needs a user shouldn't need to maintain a solution made of multiple puzzle pieces. Look at NewRelic or ruxit those are dead simple to install and to start monitoring. Thomas On 03/17/2015 04:17 PM, Lukas Krejci wrote: > On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:13:32 Heiko W.Rupp wrote: >> On 16 Mar 2015, at 20:58, Lukas Krejci wrote: >>> On the "agent side" there are more than plenty of tools that are >>> already in >>> use. We should first try to find ways of integrating with these tools >>> and only >>> when none of pre-existing stuff implements our usecase (in a good >>> enough way) >>> we should look to implement an "agent" of our own. >> What if the users does not have any of those tools installed? >> Do we tell them "install Ganglia, but not the graphing, only the >> monitoring". > I think that is going to just depend on the usecase. It might be easier to > tell them "install Ganglia" if it provides just the monitoring capabilities > they need. It also might be easier to tell them use Hawkular agent. > > Or they might have requirements that neither can meet. > >> Ah and as this does not cope well with WildFly 94 please install >> collectd on top? >> > I am pretty much sure Hawkular will have the same kind of problems. RHQ had > them for sure because incompatibilities are pretty much unavoidable IMHO. > >>> not some "heavy" agent in the RHQ sense. >> Running many of the small tools in parallel also has a cost. Similar >> to forking hundreds and thousands of shell commands. > In my mind, the most optimal feed is an in-process feed - no problems with > security, inter-process/network comms overhead, etc. > > The way people do "small" monitoring IMHO, is to run many small scripts on > schedule. Even if there is a thousand of them, they run for a short period > of > time so the load spreads nicely (usually, of course everything is a > function > of scale as we know from RHQ ;) ). > > Having 1 external process to do all monitoring, as we had in RHQ, has also > its > pros - for one it is easier to estimate the monitoring "cost" by looking at > the memory and CPU consumption of the external agent. > >> _______________________________________________ >> hawkular-dev mailing list >> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev > _______________________________________________ > hawkular-dev mailing list > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev _______________________________________________ hawkular-dev mailing list hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev