cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ram Ganesh <Ram.Gan...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [Discuss] SNMP Alerts support in CloudStack
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:46:47 GMT
Makes sense Alex. Will purse SNMP log4j appender and its equivalent for syslog.

Thanks,
Ram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> Sent: 16 January 2013 06:23
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [Discuss] SNMP Alerts support in CloudStack
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Basically, I think this spec is NOT a spec for a framework to integrate
> with SNMP but to just propagate the alerts in cloudstack today to SNMP.
> So given that, I would like to see that we don't waste our energy on a
> framework and use already available code like the SNMP log4j appender.
> Leave the energy for a real implementation.  That implementation I
> believe should be based on event system.
> 
> --Alex
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Sears [mailto:chris.x.sears@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:56 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] SNMP Alerts support in CloudStack
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Murali Reddy
> > <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Taking
> > > dependency on the event framework would mean that this feature will
> > > require a MOM broker for no additional benefit at least in this
> context of
> > > proposal.
> > >
> >
> > Isn't the plan to eventually move many features/services that don't
> need to
> > be in the core over to the event framework? If that's true, a message
> > broker will become a another required support service, just like
> MySQL is
> > today. I don't think running a broker will be so onerous that it will
> scare
> > users off from using features that depend on it.

Mime
View raw message