Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-10-10 Thread Sanjeewa Malalgoda
If we take other matrices such as CPU, memory etc this service will be too complicate IMO. That feature is anyway there with JVM matrices in C4 product family. When it comes to C5 based product i think we will still have some utility for that as well. So we will not need to worry too much about

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-10-03 Thread Asela Pathberiya
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana wrote: > +1, this should go with v3. > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Pubudu Gunatilaka > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Shall we prioritize this feature and add this to APIM 3.0.0 GA? IMO, this >> is more

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-09-20 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
+1, this should go with v3. On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Pubudu Gunatilaka wrote: > Hi, > > Shall we prioritize this feature and add this to APIM 3.0.0 GA? IMO, this > is more useful to have as we have more focus towards containers. > > Thank you! > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-09-20 Thread Pubudu Gunatilaka
Hi, Shall we prioritize this feature and add this to APIM 3.0.0 GA? IMO, this is more useful to have as we have more focus towards containers. Thank you! On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Bhathiya Jayasekara wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Imesh Gunaratne

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-04-01 Thread Bhathiya Jayasekara
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Imesh Gunaratne wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > >> >> 2) The gateway interceptors should ignore requests to this endpoint. i.e, >> security, throttling, analytics, etc should be ignored. >> > >

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-03-28 Thread Rasika Perera
[+Kishanthana, Niranjan] On C4, Server Monitoring was available through JMX[1]. Not sure about C5. I think health-check should be platform wide available rather than implementing product wise. [1] https://docs.wso2.com/display/Carbon440/JMX-based+Monitoring# 5a2eb613d9dc4b2ca6b71047aca4effa On

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-03-28 Thread Shazni Nazeer
I too think that health check deals with more metrics such as cpu, memory and heap usage usage etc. May be this health check capability could consider exposing an API to get the gateway (or for any product for that matter) metrics of memory, cpu usage and database connections etc. On Mon, Mar

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-03-27 Thread Imesh Gunaratne
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > > 2) The gateway interceptors should ignore requests to this endpoint. i.e, > security, throttling, analytics, etc should be ignored. > Wouldn't this allow to perform DoS attacks on the gateway if no interceptors are applied?

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-03-23 Thread Udara Liyanage
Hi, There can be many metrics to be considered when determining the health such as memory usage, cpu usage/load average, database connections etc... Basically it should tell that gateway is ready to server requests. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana wrote: >

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-02-01 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
Ideally we should introduce generic way to every product. At the moment we are calling carbon/admin/login.jsp as health check endpoint. Special in GW is there is no such thing. On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Bhathiya Jayasekara wrote: > Shouldn't we have a similar health

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-02-01 Thread Bhathiya Jayasekara
Shouldn't we have a similar health check for key managers as well? Thanks, Bhathiya On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Lakmal Warusawithana wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > >> Yes, its useful to have it. What this requires is a

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-01-31 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Nuwan Dias wrote: > Yes, its useful to have it. What this requires is a pre-defined service to > be shipped with the Gateway. The following needs to be considered for that > service. > > 1) The service context (path) should be preserved. We

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-01-31 Thread Nuwan Dias
Yes, its useful to have it. What this requires is a pre-defined service to be shipped with the Gateway. The following needs to be considered for that service. 1) The service context (path) should be preserved. We shouldn't allow APIs to be added with that context. 2) The gateway interceptors

Re: [Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-01-31 Thread Rushmin Fernando
+1 Other than sending back 200, I think it would be helpful if there is another configuration to make the health check API, call a given backend (which returns 200) and respond to the original caller. The advantage of having this is, we can have a rough idea about the full flow. e.g. is traffic

[Architecture] [APIM][C5] Shall we add gateway health check capability

2017-01-31 Thread Lakmal Warusawithana
Hi, When we deploying api gateway in container management system (or even fronted by ELB) we need to have a health check end point to configure. Since gateway only going pass through we don't have such at the moment. Shall we do $subject? it should only return 200 thanks -- Lakmal