Re: [Proposal] control storage systems

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:

> > For the next major release (4.0?) we have 1) Central configuration
> > (Martin)
> 
> >
> mea culpa - it was planned to 3.0, i hope i will now be more
> accurate with the timeframe :)

Well, you have some good excuses :)

> > 2) Monitoring filesystems ++ (Rory + hauk)
> >
> +1

Rory do not want monit to remove temporary files. I have no opinion
this way or that, what do other committers think?


> > 3) Web-services (instead of SNMP)
> >
> +1   We maybe should implement similar mechanism as SNMP traps - it
> means active notifycation in the case of failure. I'm not sure if we
> should realy support SNMP traps as planned early - what do you think?

I think that web-services could (probably) be used instead of
SNMP. When it comes to push or pull, that is, if a monit server should
push data to a central statistic/report gathering application or the
central application should pull data from X monit servers I'm not
sure. We have to think about this when we write up the design. The
push model is maybe preferable since the central application can wait
for incomming connection instead of knowing the address:socket for
every monit servers to request data.

> > 4) Start work on a GTK or http/browser application for reporting status
> >    (Should we do GTK or web for the client? Personally I would like
> > to     play around a bit with GTK but web is probably easier)
> 
> >
> I personaly preffer web technologies for similar purposes such as PHP
> for their portability and simple remote access

Yepp, me too if I have to be honest about it it.

> - on the other side, X application can be preffered on lot of the
> sites too. I planne to look on X applications in the near future too
> (i preffer QT but it doesn't matter) so it can maybe be good
> exercise 

I have done lots of GUI with Java before (hated it) and as you say it
could be a nice excuse to try to write a GTK+ application. I prefer
GTK above QT since I do not know squat about C++ and do not plan to
learn it either :)

> (or we can maybe use Zervlet as web alternative :)

Yeah, that would be a good alternative. It's exactely for this type of
applications I have written the Zervlet system. But the thing is, I
partly plan to earn a living from the zervlet system and have thought
long and hard about open source it and finally decided against it.
It's going to be free for non-commercial use, but unfortunately not
open source. I have no problem about using the zervlet system with
monit, in fact I would love to do so, but I'm not sure about others?

Anyway, I'll summarize this discussion for the 4.0 release after we
have discussed it more and voted on it, and put it up on the monit
web-site.

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland