[Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design

[Lukas Krejci]

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 06:41:38 Michael Burman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Not to mention all the integration weight we'll have to carry. Keeping up
> with the third party software versions and backwards compatibility is going
> to incur a huge cost in terms of development hours. The same issue we had
> with building RHQ plugins for every product.
> 

I don't see a difference here.

IMHO, integration with a 3rd party monitoring tool is the same as writing a 
plugin for monitoring an application. Both can change incompatibly out of our 
control and we'll always be just catching up on.

The reason I think integration with 3rd party monitoring is better is that, 
more probably than not, people will have used some monitoring solution by the 
time they decide to use Hawkular.

If we offer them integration with their existing monitoring solution they will 
love us. If we tell them they need to toss everything they have and instead 
deploy our stuff that might or might not do what they were used to, they might 
not love us at all ;)

> Supporting software where we can send plugins for the third-party to "keep
> up" is going to be easier for us (assuming we get some users for those - in
> which case there might be community updates to some of those plugins to
> keep them working) than building compatible APIs to our core. And in any
> case, those third-party agents will not provide us the USP we want.
> 

Well, that is a big question. How are you going to force people to write 
Hawkular plugins? Sure, this can be done inside Red Hat were we follow the 
common goal and divide the work across the teams, but I doubt community will 
be chuffed to learn yet another way of monitoring. But then again, that is 
what we propose, too ;) Integrate with existing monitoring solutions AND 
provide libraries for people to easily write their own feeds to Hawkular.

>   - Micke
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp at redhat.com>
> To: hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:13:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] scope of the agent design
> 
> 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".
> Ah and as this does not cope well with WildFly 94 please install
> collectd on top?
> 
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev