On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:37:53AM +0200, Dirk Kastens wrote:
"All configuration of disk thresholds, load limits, which processes to monitor etc. is done on the Hobbit server, NOT on the client. This is to allow centralized configuration of the monitoring system."
I think, this is not a good idea. I told the administrators of the client systems that they are responsible for what BB will monitor. If they install a new program, they have to add the process name to the bb-proctab file to check if it's running. Now they have to inform me about what should be monitored and I have to edit the hobbit-clients.cfg file. That's a lot of work, apart from the fact that the file will be growing very quickly.
It's a design decision I made. The distributed configuration doesn't work for my setup; I am sure you can find people who prefer each of the setups.
Wouldn't it be possible to still use local configuration files that are located in the client/etc directory?
Not the way Hobbit is built currently. So if that is a problem, stick with the BB client for now.
It wouldn't be impossible to support both models. What currently happens is that the client data is sent to the Hobbit server; here it is fed into the hobbitd_client module and converted into cpu, disk, memory etc. status messages. These are then sent back to the Hobbit server.
So the simplest solution would be to run the normal Hobbit client on your servers, but instead of sending data directly to the Hobbit server, it would be fed into a local hobbitd_client running on the monitored server. This does require some small code changes in the hobbitd_client module, but not very much.
Regards, Henrik