Hi
There was already a WLCG squid monitoring task force. It came to conclusions about how best to monitor squids:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/SquidMonitoringTaskForce
It covers both Frontier and CVMFS. You can find the monitoring here:
http://wlcg-squid-monitor.cern.ch/snmpstats/
These plots are already integrated into the ATLAS monitoring dashboard (http://dashb-atlas-ssb.cern.ch/dashboard/request.py/siteview#currentView=Frontier_Squid&highlight=false) and CMS have something similar.
We have also got it to pull the information directly from the GOCDB now. So if you declare an alias to your squid(s) and open up the monitoring port it should pick it up. We are working on using property bags to allow different monitoring ports from the default 3401 and other useful features.
The task force also covered other tests such as functional tests via the SUM infrastructure:
http://dashb-atlas-sum.cern.ch/dashboard/request.py/latestresultssmry-sum#profile=ATLAS&group=All+sites&site[]=All+Sites&flavour[]=All+Service+Flavours&flavour[]=All+CE+flavours&metric[]=org.atlas.WN-FrontierSquid&status[]=All+Exit+Status
it wouldn’t be hard to make one for CVMFS.
The squid discovery task force was a direct follow on from the squid monitoring task force and the monitoring agreements were based on the fact that some sites might choose to allow their squid to in future be used by e.g. cloud machines.
So I guess my feedback is: I think this has already been done. Please check before trying to re-invent the wheel.
Alastair
On 22 Jul 2014, at 15:48, Ewan MacMahon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Crooks
>> Sent: 22 July 2014 15:31
>>
>> 2. Ian noted that it would be useful to focus on the functional tests used
>> and make sure that they test the most appropriate things - the existing
>> CVMFS nagios probe might be a useful place to start.
>>
>> Please let me know by the end of Wednesday if you want to suggest any
>> amendments or additions to these points; subsequently we'll pass them on
>> to the WLCG Ops and monitoring consolidation meetings.
>>
>
> I agree that it would be best to concentrate on functional tests and
> let sites worry about the implementation. However, if the idea of the
> more detailed/invasive monitoring were to be pursued, I'd want to
> know:
>
> - What contacts there have been with the shoal developers or
> the WLCG http proxy discovery TF, given that there's clearly
> significant potential overlap?
>
> - How the cvmfsmon MonALISA gets the list of squids to care about
> (e.g. ganglia style 'anything that reports in', or a static list)?
>
> Ewan
|