Re: Monitoring ceph and prometheus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2017-05-14T23:27:03, John Spray <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> a problem.  We're talking about pretty small messages here, doing
> nothing but updating some counters in memory, and it's a lot less work
> than the OSDs already do.

True, but sending (or exposing) them to ceph-mgr only for ceph-mgr to
pass them on on-demand to Prometheus just still strikes me as a
redundant hop.

> Simplicity.  It makes it super simple for a user with nothing but
> vanilla Ceph and vanilla Prometheus to connect the two things
> together.  Anything that requires lots of per-daemon configuration
> relies on some addition orchestration tool to do that plumbing.

Prometheus doesn't usually require per-daemon configuration; it has all
the hooks to deal with dynamically update the list of daemons to
monitor.
https://github.com/prometheus/docs/blob/master/content/docs/operating/configuration.md

Ok, so maybe we don't want to use consul/marathon/k8s/serversets.
(Surprised not to see etcd, actually ;-)

But Ceph *does* have a service that tells a client about all
OSDs/MDSs/MONs/... instances, don't we? All the maps. This might better
be solved by a ceph_sd_configs section to point it at a Ceph cluster
with a single stanza?

So, OK, ceph-mgr could additionally keep track of radosgw or nfs-ganesha
instances, possibly more - and possibly strip out the parts of the maps
Prometheus doesn't need to know about. And possibly provide an API that
doesn't require CephX.

So, perhaps exposing this - the dynamic service/target discovery via
ceph-mgr to Prometheus, and then having Prometheus pull directly - is a
synthesis of both positions?

> In conversations about this topic (centralized vs. per-daemon stats),
> we usually come to the conclusion that both are useful: the simple
> "batteries included" configuration where we present a single endpoint,
> vs. the configuration where some external program is aware of all
> individual daemons and monitoring them directly.  If we end up with
> both, that's not an awful thing.

Perhaps the above is the one that can converge both positions into
one?


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux