Well, you could run monit on the master and it would do the just-alerting you 
wanted. I just thought on the slaves might be better so you have some actual 
control of the processes and/or visibility into general resources of the host. 
But hey, it’s Linux; multiple ways to skin that cat. 

PS: monit would be free, but (if you implemented on the slaves) you could also 
throw some $$ at the M/Monit tool which could run on the master and give you a 
“single pane of glass” view into the entire monit+smokeping master-and-slaves 
ecosystem...

—bill


> On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Gregory Sloop <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Monit won't help if the slave went down because someone unplugged it, or some 
> other disaster befell it. It also won't help if the process is still running, 
> but not actually pushing data to the master.
> 
> However, it does have the benefit of being easy to install and configure, 
> with no development/debug time required.
> 
> For the use cases I've got, I think something running on the master would be 
> more likely to be helpful more of the time. [I can't recall a single case 
> where the slave was still up and functional, where Monit would do anything, 
> yet the smokeping slave process was borked. But that may just be me.]
> 
> -Greg
> 
> 
> I second the monit suggestion. I have used it for exactly this purpose 
> (watching/restarting slave threads) in the past.
> 
> regards,
> Darren
> 
> On 23 April 2018 at 05:47, Bill Houle <[email protected]> wrote:
> As someone who recently had to implement a monitor of not-smokeping 
> processes, might I suggest “monit”? It is a fairly mainstream package that is 
> readily available in yum and apt-get repos. 
> 
> Monit is a locally-installed (ie per slave) daemon process that can monitor 
> files (by timestamp or checksum), processes (by PID), programs (by exit 
> code), and system (by resource consumption). It has a flexible config 
> language that can alert/start/stop/exec based on those monitor conditions. 
> 
> I could see monit being used to watch each slave and alert and/or 
> auto-restart the data collection. 
> 
> —bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 22, 2018, at 11:29 AM, Gregory Sloop <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> This is an awesome idea - and one I've wished for in the past - but never got 
> around to working on.
> Checking the slave data files modification times seems plausible as a way to 
> check updates - but you'd have to test to be sure. [IIRC that will work 
> though.]
> 
> Personally, I'd probably try to write it in bash - or something completely 
> external to smokeping. [Bash because of few dependicies - though you'll 
> probably want/need something like sendemail for email notifications...
> 
> If slaves are behind NAT or something similar, you'll have to have a way to 
> get to the slave for handling a restart, but that's really outside the scope 
> of what you're doing. 
> 
> Honestly, simply getting notification that a slave is not pushing updates 
> would be more than enough - even without the restart.
> 
> Sounds fab to me. And I can't think of a better way, off hand.
> 
> -Greg
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have a Debian Jessie box with Smokeping 2.6 installed on it.
> 
> It receives data from Slaves over the Internet (10 slaves or so).
> Each Slave roughly monitors xDSL or fiber links.
> 
> Every monday, I can see that data from one or two slaves is missing.
> Then I remotely restart smokeping service on slave where data is missing.
> 
> I would like to implement something like:
> 
> - if no data at all from Slave for a given period of time, then restart 
> Slave's smokeping service and send a Notice email
> 
> - if no data at all from Slave for a longer period of time and Slave's 
> restart already attempted, then send a Warning email
> 
> As Slaves data is stored on a known directory ins Master's filesystem, I 
> think I can detect when data from a slave has not been lately  modified, 
> reading directories of files modification times.
> 
> Is there a better way to do so ? Alert's settings seem more appropriate when 
> WAN links in my case, are slower.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory Sloop, Principal: Sloop Network & Computer Consulting
> Voice: 503.251.0452 x82
> EMail: [email protected]
> http://www.sloop.net
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> smokeping-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/smokeping-users
> 
> _______________________________________________
> smokeping-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/smokeping-users
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory Sloop, Principal: Sloop Network & Computer Consulting
> Voice: 503.251.0452 x82
> EMail: [email protected]
> http://www.sloop.net
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> smokeping-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/smokeping-users
_______________________________________________
smokeping-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/smokeping-users

Reply via email to