This I didn't know. It's true in fact, I checked the manifests. Though monit is not deployed yet because of lack of packages in Fuel ISO. Anyways, I think the argument about using yet another monitoring service is now rendered invalid.

So +1 for monit? :)


On 11/26/2014 05:55 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote:
Monit is easy and is used to control states of Compute nodes. We can adopt it for master node.

Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin < <>> wrote:

    As for me - zabbix is overkill for one node. Zabbix Server + Agent
    + Frontend + DB + HTTP server, and all of it for one node? Why not
    use something that was developed for monitoring one node, doesn't
    have many deps and work out of the box? Not necessarily Monit, but
    something similar.

    On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Przemyslaw Kaminski
    < <>> wrote:

        We want to monitor Fuel master node while Zabbix is only on
        slave nodes and not on master. The monitoring service is
        supposed to be installed on Fuel master host (not inside a
        Docker container) and provide basic info about free disk
        space, etc.


        On 11/26/2014 02:58 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:

            On 11/26/2014 08:18 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:

                So then in the end, there will be 3 monitoring systems
                to learn,
                configure, and debug? Monasca for cloud users, zabbix
                for most of the
                physical systems, and sensu or monit "to be small"?

                Seems very complicated.

                If not just monasca, why not the zabbix thats already
                being deployed?

            Yes, I had the same thoughts... why not just use zabbix
            since it's used already?


            OpenStack-dev mailing list

        OpenStack-dev mailing list

    OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to