/ Zope / Apsis / Pound Mailing List / Archive / 2006 / 2006-02 / new features - worth implementing?

[ << ] [ >> ]

[ Subversion behind Pound (TCP Keep-Alive problem ... ] [ Extending Pound / "Nima Mazloumi" ... ]

new features - worth implementing?
"Sergio Freire" <sergio-s-freire(at)ptinovacao.pt>
2006-02-09 13:42:51 [ FULL ]
Hi Robert and all,
Do you think it's worth implementing these features?

	a) built-in basic statistics, like http failures, per http code
failures, something basic but that can be very useful to track problems;
	b) alarm triggering when a backend goes dead and when it comes
alive... I was thinking on something like a "plugin", something that
gets forked so you can send an SMS, an email, a trap.. 
 
Regards,
Sergio Freire

Re: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?
Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch>
2006-02-09 14:06:19 [ FULL ]
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 12:42 +0000, Sergio Freire wrote:[...]

In the interest of keeping things simple: aren't these features best
dealt with by log analysers? After all, the information is fully
available in the logs and can be easily caught by specialised tools that
already exist.[...]

RE: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?
"Sergio Freire" <sergio-s-freire(at)ptinovacao.pt>
2006-02-09 14:25:43 [ FULL ]
Maybe you're right for point a), I agree. But don't you think its best
to have b) implemented inside? Since log analyzers are not very
synchronous and this might be a critical thing to have without a third
party tool?


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Segall [mailto:roseg(at)apsis.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:06 PM
To: pound(at)apsis.ch
Subject: Re: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?

On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 12:42 +0000, Sergio Freire wrote:[...]
problems;[...]

In the interest of keeping things simple: aren't these features best
dealt with by log analysers? After all, the information is fully
available in the logs and can be easily caught by specialised tools that
already exist.[...]

R: Re: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?
alessio <a.cervellin(at)virgilio.it>
2006-02-09 14:28:02 [ FULL ]
> In the interest of keeping things simple: aren't these features best[...]
available in the logs and can be easily caught by specialised tools 
that[...]

I totaly agree.
Also, It would be nice if when 
running non-daemon pound could say
what it was doing on stdout.

Re: R: Re: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?
Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch>
2006-02-09 14:43:40 [ FULL ]
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 14:28 +0100, alessio wrote:
[...]

It sort of does. Configure it without log, and normal traffic log
messages go to stdout, error messages go to stderr. This was done to
support the daemontools mode of logging.

For more fine-grained stuff you can configure your syslog to send
messages to the console.[...]

Re: [Pound Mailing List] new features - worth implementing?
Will Tatam <wtatam(at)premierit.com>
2006-02-09 18:43:12 [ FULL ]
Sergio Freire wrote:
[...]
follow the logs and send off any log entrys that aren't normal page
requests to an admin.
[...]

MailBoxer