Lately, monitoring has been a trending topic from the devops crowd. ripienaar and Jason Dixon amongst other have voiced what many are thinking. They’ve done a good job describing what’s wrong and what sort of tool the industry needs. They also express clearly the need to part from a monolithic supervision solution and monolithic graphing solution.
I’ll take my shot at expressing what I feel is wrong in the current tools:
Why won’t you cover 90% of use cases?
Supervision is hard, each production is different, and complex business logic must be tested, so indeed, a monitoring tool must be able to be extended easily, that’s a given and every supervision tool got this right. But why on earth should tests that every production will need be implemented as extensions ? Let’s take a look at the expected value which is the less intrusive way to check for a machine’s load average:
- The nagios core engine determines that an snmp check must be run for a machine
- Fork, execute a shell which execs the check_snmp command
- Feed the right arguments to snmpget
You think I am kidding ? I am not. Of course each machine needing a check will need to go through this steps. So for as few as 20 machines requiring supervision at each check interval 60 processes would be spawned. 60 processes spawned for what ? Sending 20 udp packets, waiting for a packet in return. Same goes for TCP, ICMP, and many more.
But it gets better ! Want to check more than one SNMP OIDs on the same machine ? The same process happens for every OID, which means that if you have
Now consider the common use case, what does a supervision and graphing engine do most of its time:
- Poll ICMP
- Poll TCP - sometimes sending or expecting a payload, say for HTTP or SMTP checks
- Poll SNMP
So for a simple setup of 20 machines, checking these simple services, you could be well into the thousands of process spawning every check interval per machine. If you have a reasonable interval, say 30 seconds or a minute.
Add to that some custom hand written scripts in perl, python, ruby - or worse, bash - to check for business logic and you end up having to sacrifice a large machine (or cloud instance) for simple checks.
That would be my number one requirement for a clean monitoring system: Cover the simple use cases ! Better yet, do it asynchronously ! Because for the common use case, all monitoring needs to do is wait on I/O. Every language has nice interfaces for handling evented I/O the core of a poller should be evented.
There are of course a few edge cases which make it hard to use that technique, ICMP coming to mind since it requires root access on UNIX boxes, but either privilege separation or a root process for ICMP checks can mitigate that difficulty.
Why is alerting supposed to be different than graphing ?
Except from some less than ideal solutions – looking at you Zabbix - Supervision and Graphing are most of the time two separate tool suites, which means that in many cases, the same metrics are polled several times. The typical web shop now has a cacti and nagios installation, standard metrics such as available disk space will be polled by cacti and then by nagios (in many cases through an horrible private mechanism such as nrpe).
Functionally speaking the tasks to be completed are rather simple:
- Polling a list of data-points
- Ability to create compound data-points based on polled values
- Alerting on data-point thresholds or conditions – Storing time-series of data-points
These four tasks are all that is needed for a complete monitoring and graphing solution. Of course this is only the core of the solution and other features are needed, but as far as data is concerned these four tasks are sufficient.
How many times will we have to reinvent SNMP
I’ll give you that, SNMP sucks, the S in the name - simple - is a blatant lie. In fact, for people running in the cloud, a collector such as Collectd might be a better option. But the fact that every monitoring application “vendor” has a private non inter-operable collecting agent is distressing to say the least.
SNMP can rarely be totally avoided and when possible should be relied upon. Well thought out, easily extensible collectors are nice additions but most solutions are clearly inferior to SNMP and added stress on machines through sequential, process spawning solutions.
A broken thermometer does not mean your healthy
(LLDP, CDP, SNMP) are very useful to make sure assumptions you make on a production environment match the reality, they should never be the basis of decisions or considered exhaustive.
A simple analogy, using discovery based monitoring solutions is equivalent to saying you store your machine list in a DNS zone file. It should be true, there should be mechanisms to ensure it is true, but might get out of sync over time: it cannot be treated as a source of truth.
Does everyone need a horizontally scalable solution ?
I appreciate the fact that every one wants the next big tool to be horizontally scalable, to distribute checks geographically. The thing is, most people need this because a single machine or instance’s limits are very easily reached with today’s solutions. A single process evented check engine, with an embedded interpretor allowing simple business logic checks should be small enough to allow matching most peoples needs.
This is not to say, once the single machine limit is reached, a distributed mode should not be available for larger installations. But the current trend seems to recommend using AMQP type transports (e.g: which while still being more economic than nagios’ approach will put an unnecessary strain on singe machine setups and also raise the bar of prerequisites for a working installation.
Now as far as storage is concerned, there are enough options out there to choose from which make it easy to scale storage. Time-series and data-points are perfect candidates for non relational databases and should be leveraged in this case. For single machine setups, RRD type databases should also be usable.
Keep it decoupled
The above points can be addressed by using decoupled software. Cacti for instance is a great visualization interface but has a strongly coupled poller and storage engine, making it very cumbersome to change parts of its functionality (for instance replacing the RRD storage part).
Even though I believe in making it easy to use single machine setups, each part should be easily exported elsewhere or replaced. Production setups are complex and demanding, each having their specific prerequisites and preferences.
Some essential parts stand out as easily decoupled:
- Data-point pollers
- Data-point storage engine
- Visualization Interface
There are plenty of tools which even though they need a lot of work to be made to work together still provide a “good enough” feeling, amongst those I have been happy to work with:
- Nagios: The lesser of many evils
- Collectd: Nice poller which can be used from nagios for alerting
- Graphite http://graphite.wikidot.com: Nice grapher which is inter-operable with collectd
- OpenTSDB http://opentsdb.net: Seems like a step in the right direction but requires a complex stack to be setup.
Now of course if all that time spent writing articles was spent coding, we might get closer to a good solution. I will do my best to unslack(); and get busy coding.