RFC: Centrilized managment console
jjesse at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 01:10:13 UTC 2008
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Dan Shearer <dan at shearer.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 08:00:31PM -0500, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote:
> > I have been working on the blueprint of a centralized managment console
> I'm not sure how best to contribute, so I'll start with a few comments
> here first.
> I wonder if the Rationale section is maybe looking at the right things
> from the wrong starting point. To me the deeper analysis is:
> Ubuntu Server has no awareness of itself as a product.
> Yast, webmin and the rest don't address this either. Personally I'd be
> delighted to stick with existing Ubuntu Server tools for managing
> services (thanks, Debian, upstreams!) and just overlay a higher order of
> understanding and control. Which, at our later option, we can make as
> GUI as we like, or as is required.
> There's a subtle point here that was only hinted at before, I can't
> remember who made it. The good thing a lot of us see in the Microsoft
> admin tools is that they have this higher order of understanding to some
> degree. Not so much just that there is a GUI. And that is where I think
> some of the debate on this list has been like ships passing in the
> night, people not realising that the others are talking about different
> things. I despite a mandatory GUI as much as the next Unix person. But I
> recognise value in a network-centric management view, such as delivered
> nicely by some GUI tools.
> Outline Sketch Implementation
> Following is a sketch of a commandline tool ubuntu-server-admin.py that,
> if it existed, would give me confidence that a useful admin tool could
> be built on top of it. My tool would be interacting with existing Linux
> and Debian management facilities, and would use a database. I have a
> clear idea for how the database would work but that's detail.
> u-s-admin --report --overview returns an XML summary file that says:
> name = X, otherwise known as Z
> services I'm running that matter to users are A,B,C
> the locations of my vital data are D, E, F
> the network services I depend on are G, H I
> the network servers I depend on are J, K, L
> the machines to which I log messages are M and N
> the machines monitoring me are O and P
> (where I say 'machine' above it is likely 'CNAME' in reality to avoid
> hard coding)
> u-s-admin --report --depend-network-services would return:
> DNS server details, and their current status
> KDC server details and status
> u-s-admin --report --depend-network-servers would return:
> Server J: rsync for backup, on port X; and current status
> Server K: SQL server for webapp we're running; and current status
> Server L: web proxy for accellerator for Apache we're running; and
> current status
> Given this level of awareness, next we need to configure these things.
> The fact of this configuration would not be kept in the database, the
> database would only be for the higher-level understanding. This would be
> making calls to debconf or apachectl or whatever makes sense, and these
> tools just manage state the same way they always did.
> Dan Shearer
> dan at shearer.org
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
I agree that I don't want to see a nice GUI environment, but I do want to be
able policies against a group of computers that will report information back
So what happens after I do a u-s-admin -report? How does the data get
displayed? How can i report against u-s-admin? I would like a list of
computers that are my DNS servers in my environment or a list of my SQL
servers in the environment?
XML is great that once you define that information it can be
transmitted/delt with however you want to.
Let me think more on this
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-server