[DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? Regards, Viet
Re: [DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
I was recently talking to a user that was really interested in the modular framework of the server. They really liked the idea of jettisoning the EJB container and were also really interested in monitoring the server. For those folks I'd suspect that JMX is the right answer. Personally, I'd go with JMX and if someone wants to use MEJB they should be able to. On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Viet Nguyen wrote: Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? Regards, Viet
Re: [DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Viet Nguyen wrote: Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? My impression (not based on any inside info whatsoever) is that the MEJB was introduced largely because for some reason the jsr77 spec team didn't want to require jmx in j2ee -- this was well before jmx was added to j2se. I don't see any problem using jmx for monitoring geronimo servers. If we want to be able to also monitor other servers we could keep the MEJB-using code around for that purpose. my opinion :-) david jencks Regards, Viet
Re: [DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
--- David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Viet Nguyen wrote: Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? My impression (not based on any inside info whatsoever) is that the MEJB was introduced largely because for some reason the jsr77 spec team didn't want to require jmx in j2ee -- this was well before jmx was added to j2se. Um, not quite.. According to JSR77.7.1.1 JMX requirements - The MEJB component exposes the manageable resources on a J2EE platform as JMX Managed Beans (MBeans) and requires an implementation of the JMX public APIs specified by the Java Management Extensions Instrumentation and Agent Specification, v1.1. It could be that MEJB is well suited for writing management tools designed to manage heavy duty servers with clustering capabilities. JMX will be sufficient for little-G. I am OK with switching to JMX. We MUST use JSR77 stats, i.e. use getStats() on J2EEManagedObjects and resist the temptation to get to raw MBeans directly. I don't see any problem using jmx for monitoring geronimo servers. If we want to be able to also monitor other servers we could keep the MEJB-using code around for that purpose. +1 Thanks Anita my opinion :-) david jencks Regards, Viet Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
I agree. I think Jeff mentioned this first, for the monitoring client to support different connectors for getting the stats. So we would have one connector that talks JMX, another one that uses MEJB, etc. Jarek On Jan 2, 2008 4:17 PM, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was recently talking to a user that was really interested in the modular framework of the server. They really liked the idea of jettisoning the EJB container and were also really interested in monitoring the server. For those folks I'd suspect that JMX is the right answer. Personally, I'd go with JMX and if someone wants to use MEJB they should be able to. On Jan 2, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Viet Nguyen wrote: Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? Regards, Viet
Re: [DISCUSS] Monitoring Plugin to get stats through JMX or MEJB
On Jan 2, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Viet Nguyen wrote: Hi All, There was a recent discussion on whether the monitoring plugin should use JMX or MEJB to fetch Geronimo's statistics. Since we want to be able to monitor any type of Geronimo server, including little-G, it is not preferred that we have to pull in OpenEJB in order to monitor that server. Therefore, the JMX method looks like a potential alternative, because I do not think it will need to pull in any additional components. The idea of using JMX and MEJB is the same, and that is, we want to get a hold of the MBeanServer to query that for statistics. The concept of MEJB was defined in JSR-77, which is the only reason I am hesitant to start migrating over to using the JMX method. Should we strictly follow the JSR? or should we branch off and customize a little? Any thoughts or comments? I like JMX. Regards, Alan
