Date: Jul 10 2002
This article defines some principles that a supposedly future RRD framework should have. The framework should consist of 3 independent subsystems:
Inspired by Cricket hierarchical configuration, we state here that the configuration should be hierarchical. Child nodes should inherit the properties from parents.
The format of the configuration files has not to be neccessary as in Cricket. I'm not sure if it's worth keeping them in a directory structure representing the hierarchy tree, but it's definitive that multiple files should be supported.
A good step ahead would be the configuration in XML format. It is also possible to have a converter from some other formats (plain text, or an SQL database) into XML which will be consumed by the framework.
I leave the Data collection uncovered, since all of the existing RRD frontends do this part already.
At the moment, the only known solution for RRD data monitoring is Cricket. Its threshold monitoring has certain limitation and drawbacks. Nevertheless, it may be used as the basis for the ideas in the further development.
The major idea is to build data monitoring as a part of a bigger RRD framework, still being the independent part of the whole. The data can come from many differet sources, from RRDs produced by any of the existing and future frontends.
In most existing RRD frontends, each RRD datafile should be described individually. This is not very convenient, especially for the cases when you have several (dozens) files containing one type of data. (e.g., input traffic per source autonomous system). Also the files of same type can be created and deleted by their sourcing frontend, and it would be more convenient not having to change the monitoring configuration.
Thus, we need a wildcards language which would allow to specify multiple files and derive the datasource names from thir names.
Each data being monitored (for RRDs, its definition specifies the <filename, DS, RRA> triple) has to have a universal name. The name can be fully or partly qualified, depending on the configuration tree. Examples of such data reference follow:
/Netflow/Exporters/126.96.36.199/if3/bps /* Interface #3 on router 188.8.131.52 */ /Netflow/Subnets/Dialin/bps /* Dial-in address pool */ /* different grouping for the rack temperature in Server Room 1 */ /Envmon/RackTemp/SR1 /SR1/Envmon/RackTemp
Name aliasing should allow short or symbolic names for data sources:
/* Alias for /Netflow/Exporters/184.108.40.206/if3 */ /Netflow/Upstream/FranceTelecom1
Data threshold monitoring should be described in a hierarchical manner.
It would be interesting to have monitoring rules separate from the data hierarchy. On the other hand, 1) some data sources might need special and unique monitoring rules; 2) in some cases, several data sources need to be combined in order to build a threshold rule. I'm not yet sure how this must be achieved.
Once the threshold violation occurs, the monitoring system should produce the alarm event.
Cricket has a good set of ways to report the alarm, and they can be taken as the basis.
Also what Cricket is really missing, is displaying those data sources being alarmed. The Monitoring system should produce the instructions to the Displaying system in order to display the summary of those data sources which produce alarms within certain time.
View profiles should be configured in a hierarchical manner.
Again as with data monitoring, some Views should be configured independently of the data hierarchy, but also some data should be able to define specific view profiles.
There should be view profiles of different types:
The Displaying system should allow the following ways of viewing: 1) hierarchical browsing, like Cricket; 2) alarm summary display; 3) individual graph display, without HTML surrounding.
The graph images should be cashed and reused whenever possible. In alarm summary browsing, these images can be generated at the moment of the event.
Copyright (c) 2002 Stanislav Sinyagin firstname.lastname@example.org