Re: [Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design
On Mar 16, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Heiko W.Rupp <hrupp(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev