perfsonar development work

[Fausto Vetter <>]

Hi,

Few cents below...

Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> This discussion takes interesting turns. :) Well, "interesting", 
> because I came out with the idea of using syslog as an "evolutionary" 
> step. My expectation was that most developers had been using syslog 
> anyway, so it seemed only natural to use this for centralized 
> monitoring services as well.
>
> What I had in mind was that with syslog, being a relatively simple 
> (yet, quite effective, as we know) system, we could concentrate on the 
> contents of the entries, rather than on the format (which should have 
> been more or less standard... or so I thought :D.)
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the format proposals are unwelcome: 
> quite on the contrary; I'm just making an interesting observation. 
> Now, specifically for the XML, it IS very interesting, because our 
> next step will (almost certainly) be extending the EchoRequest (and, 
> respectively, the EchoResponse) messages.
>
> Still, however, my view is that at this stage we should concentrate on 
> making clear _what_ are we going to have in those log 
> entries/messages. To me, the notion of "format" at the moment is more 
> in the sense of how it will be nice to have it presented in the logs, 
> in order for it to be easily comprehensible by humans.
>
> Of course, I can see the strong points in the "plan ahead" approach, 
> but what I'm mostly worried about is the time: we have 30th of April 
> imposed by Nicolas as the deadline to have a proposal for the syslog 
> entries format. And going back to the syslog, perhaps putting XML in 
> it will (actually: definitely will) hurt the legibility.
>
> So, while we should certainly keep in mind the interesting suggestions 
> that are being made, I would suggest to concentrate on what exactly 
> will the log entries contain and look like.
>
> Fausto, you've set up very nice pages on the Wiki, thanks. :) I have a 
> few comments, but I'll present them in a separate mail. Concerning the 
> fine format you proposed however, I'm still lost about the questions I 
> raised earlier, I'm afraid:
>
> > [SERVICE_TYPE] RESULT.ACTION 'DESCRIPTION'
>
> 1) Do we have a common agreement on the SERVICE_TYPEs abbreviations?
I cannot answer this one for you... :-D 

If we don't, we need.
> 2) RESULT should be fairly straightforward, I guess, but how about 
> ACTION -- I'm afraid I don't understand what is going to be recorded 
> there exactly. To put it another way -- are the ACTIONs going to be 
> fairly standard (in fact: enforced as standard?)
Agreed. Result should be something like: SUCCESS and FAILURE... It is 
basically a status of the action.

Actions also need to be somehow standard, otherwise becomes harder later 
to treat it.

Thanks,
Fausto