Re: [Nagios-devel] Core 4 Remote Workers

Support forum for Nagios Core, Nagios Plugins, NCPA, NRPE, NSCA, NDOUtils and more. Engage with the community of users including those using the open source solutions.
Locked
Guest

Re: [Nagios-devel] Core 4 Remote Workers

Post by Guest »

On 02/04/2013 01:58 PM, Jochen Bern wrote:
> On 03.02.2013 13:12, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> Scenario 1: Loadbalancing, using remote workers to enhance the cpu and
>> memory resources available to us.
>>
>> Scenario 2: "Passing" firewalls, using remote workers to run check the
>> master can't access due to access restrictions.
>>
>> Scenario 3: Remote view of inside services, using remote workers to see
>> the network from a particular point of view, such as a field office using
>> services inside the main office.
>>
>>> To sum it up, what I would imagine as Nagios' long-term development for
>>> *your* scenario wouldn't be a Nagios/worker "tasks go downstream"
>>> interface but one that allows a local Nagios to push "local" status data
>>> (from config to current check results) to an upstream "integration and
>>> oversight" Nagios.
>>>
>>> (And yes, pinpointing how exactly you can and want to do access control,
>>> formation of host/service *groups*, notifications for local/global
>>> users, yadda yadda, with such a configuration brain split *will* be a bear.)
>>
>> Yup. It *is* useful though. mod_gearman has the same issue, really, and
>> people use that.
>
> I pondered that a bit. Getting tester and testee right is, to put it
> mildly, a recurring topic. I wonder whether we might want to introduce
> sort of a point-of-view definition into host and service definitions, as in:
>
> define service{
> host_name BranchA-Printer
> service_description Submission Port
> as_seen_from BranchA-Firewall
> }
> define service{
> host_name BranchB-Intranet
> service_description Login Web Form
> as_seen_from BranchB-Gateway:Squid Proxy
> }
>
> (I'm not sure whether the default value should better be = host_name, or
> empty / (local) "Nagios Process".)
>
> This would, of course, partially duplicate parents and dependencies.
> (Or, more precisely, one should autogenerate dependencies out of them.)
> However, if we see semi-auto-organizing Nagios hierarchies on the
> horizon, an explicit separation between test-method-induced and
> service-inherent dependencies might actually be a good idea in and of
> itself.
>
> An immediate benefit of introducing this concept would be that command
> definitions could change from stuff like
>
> command_line check_by_ssh -H `echo $HOSTADDRESS$ | sed 's/foo/bar/'` -C
> "check_http -H `echo $HOSTADDRESS$ | sed '/more/s/black/majick/'`
>
> (or custom variables whose names change from one Nagios admin to the
> next ...) to something like
>
> command_line check_by_ssh -H $ASFADDRESS$ -C "check_http -H $HOSTADDRESS$"
>
> In the long term, when a sub-Nagios registers its config / objects with
> a super-Nagios, the point-of-view information could be not only adapted
> automatically (super-Nagios: "testing all that is *that* sub-Nagios'
> job"), but possibly even aid in uniquely identifying the tested object
> and its state at the super-Nagios. As in,
> a) "sub-Nagios A has object X as_seen_from Y, sub-Nagios B has the exact
> same, assuming that the name 'X' is unique at point-of-view Y, I can
> conclude that it's indeed the same object" (and, thus, that I can
> load-balance checks of X between them)
> b) "sub-Nagios A has object X as_seen_from Y, sub-Nagios B has object X
> (known to be the same) as_seen_from Z, I can disregard UNKNOWNs that
> come from only one of them"
>

Consider this in terms of usecases. Which problem are we solving
by introducing multiple check-locations for the same check that we
don't solve by letting users configure several checks of the same
service, but distributing some of them to a remote worker (or a
different system that reports in passive check results)?

--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231

Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and
terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war
on peace.





This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: ae@op5.se
Locked