On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Rich Megginson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 10:54 AM, Jason DeTiberus wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Rich Megginson < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> We are trying to start up a CentOS OpsTools SIG >> https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup for logging, monitoring, >> etc. >> > It almost seems to me that this is actually a meta SIG in a sense. I would > almost expect there to be a SIG for each sub topic here. > > > So we should have a logging SIG, a monitoring SIG, etc.? > I believe so. I'm not completely against them living in an OpsTools SIG, I just worry about OpsTools focusing on one type of logging and/or monitoring framework and then a competing SIG coming along that would address others. > The intention is that this would be the upstream for development and >> packaging of tools related to logging (EFK stack, etc.), monitoring, and >> other opstools, as a single place where packages can be consumed by >> OpenShift Origin, RDO, and other upstream projects that use CentOS - pool >> our resources, share the lessons learned, and enable cross project log >> aggregation and correlation (e.g. running OpenShift on top of OpenStack on >> top of Ceph/Gluster - do my OpenShift application errors correlate with >> Nova errors? file system errors?). >> > I definitely love the concept, I just want to make sure that we don't > duplicate effort being done by the existing SIGs or end up with conflicting > efforts. > > >> This would also be a place for installers (puppet manifests, ansible >> playbooks), and possibly testing/CI and containers. >> > So, for OpenShift we already have the PaaS SIG that will cover > installation and testing/CI. The Cloud SIG covers this for OpenStack as > well. > > > What about testing/CI for running OpenShift with an integrated EFK stack? > Would that be covered by the PaaS SIG? Same with Cloud SIG, running > OpenStack with an EFK stack for logging. > I believe we would want to extend that into the PaaS SIG (I can't really speak to the Cloud SIG), since logging and metrics are an integral part of the complete OpenShift platform. Obviously we need to do work towards the automated deployment of those platforms, but I would fully intend that testing and CI coverage include the deployed logging and metrics components. Shipping containers would also have to be tied in closely with the PaaS SIG, since platform versions are tied to versions of the integrated containers as well. > > > > There is also potentially overlap with the ConfigManagement SIG here as > well. > > >> It is intended that this will form the basis of >> https://github.com/openshift/origin-aggregated-logging which will be >> built from the packages and base images provided by the SIG. >> If you are interested, please chime in in the email thread: >> https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2016-May/014777.html >> > > -- > Jason DeTiberus > > > -- Jason DeTiberus
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openshift.redhat.com/openshiftmm/listinfo/users
