On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Jonathan Jesse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Dan Shearer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 08:00:31PM -0500, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote: >> > I have been working on the blueprint of a centralized managment console >> : >> > >> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-centralized-services-administrator >> >> I'm not sure how best to contribute, so I'll start with a few comments >> here first. >> >> Rationale >> --------- >> >> I wonder if the Rationale section is maybe looking at the right things >> from the wrong starting point. To me the deeper analysis is: >> >> Ubuntu Server has no awareness of itself as a product. >> >> Yast, webmin and the rest don't address this either. Personally I'd be >> delighted to stick with existing Ubuntu Server tools for managing >> services (thanks, Debian, upstreams!) and just overlay a higher order of >> understanding and control. Which, at our later option, we can make as >> GUI as we like, or as is required. >> >> There's a subtle point here that was only hinted at before, I can't >> remember who made it. The good thing a lot of us see in the Microsoft >> admin tools is that they have this higher order of understanding to some >> degree. Not so much just that there is a GUI. And that is where I think >> some of the debate on this list has been like ships passing in the >> night, people not realising that the others are talking about different >> things. I despite a mandatory GUI as much as the next Unix person. But I >> recognise value in a network-centric management view, such as delivered >> nicely by some GUI tools. >> >> Outline Sketch Implementation >> ----------------------------- >> >> Following is a sketch of a commandline tool ubuntu-server-admin.py that, >> if it existed, would give me confidence that a useful admin tool could >> be built on top of it. My tool would be interacting with existing Linux >> and Debian management facilities, and would use a database. I have a >> clear idea for how the database would work but that's detail. >> >> u-s-admin --report --overview returns an XML summary file that says: >> name = X, otherwise known as Z >> services I'm running that matter to users are A,B,C >> the locations of my vital data are D, E, F >> the network services I depend on are G, H I >> the network servers I depend on are J, K, L >> the machines to which I log messages are M and N >> the machines monitoring me are O and P >> >> (where I say 'machine' above it is likely 'CNAME' in reality to avoid >> hard coding) >> >> u-s-admin --report --depend-network-services would return: >> DNS server details, and their current status >> KDC server details and status >> : >> >> u-s-admin --report --depend-network-servers would return: >> Server J: rsync for backup, on port X; and current status >> Server K: SQL server for webapp we're running; and current status >> Server L: web proxy for accellerator for Apache we're running; and >> current status >> >> Given this level of awareness, next we need to configure these things. >> The fact of this configuration would not be kept in the database, the >> database would only be for the higher-level understanding. This would be >> making calls to debconf or apachectl or whatever makes sense, and these >> tools just manage state the same way they always did. >> >> -- >> Dan Shearer >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -- >> ubuntu-server mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server >> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam >> > > Dan, > > I agree that I don't want to see a nice GUI environment, but I do want to > be able policies against a group of computers that will report information > back to me. > > So what happens after I do a u-s-admin -report? How does the data get > displayed? How can i report against u-s-admin? I would like a list of > computers that are my DNS servers in my environment or a list of my SQL > servers in the environment? > > XML is great that once you define that information it can be > transmitted/delt with however you want to. > > Let me think more on this > Replying to my own post: I think we should mandate a GUI environment. Something that can be schedued to run over and over again Nicolas, Just wonder if this is something that should be targeted to Intrepid +1? That way we can run it and test it for intrepid and move forward as we work towards the next ZLTS
-- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
