Hi Chris, it's a valid question, however in my mind you already gave the most important hint with respect to that discussion, which is that SNMP is really designed for devices rather than applications. Read more on JMX vs. SNMP and why JMX makes the most sense for monitoring Java applications on [1].
Tobias [1] https://blogs.oracle.com/jmxetc/entry/jmx_vs_snmp On 16.03.2012, at 16:40, Christopher Brooks <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > I think more monitoring is great, and I think JMX is a possible way to > go. I would like to argue for abstraction, e.g. to create some code in > the kernel that does the monitoring so that we aren't limited to JMX if > we don't need to be. I'd like to hear a discussion of why not SNMP > instead - lots of vendors might be looking to get tighter integration, > and SNMP seems to be the way to go for embedded devices. Further, the > toolsets for SNMP are much better known to tech engineers and ops folks > than JMX tools, unless the institution runs alot of Java. > > Here's a library: http://www.snmp4j.org/ > > I'm not against JMX of course, but if you're looking for preferences I > would consider SNMP. > > Chris _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
