RFC: Centrilized managment console

Nicolas Valcarcel nvalcarcel at ubuntu.com
Thu Jun 5 04:03:14 UTC 2008


Well, the plan is to have some things ready for intrepid, we have
separate the project on 3 different phases: write backends, write
interfaces for those backends, write the UI Frame for manage those
interfaces in a graphical way, so for intrepid at least we need to have
a bug group of backends and for intrepid+1 all of them and some
interfaces, that was the idea we talk about on UDS.

On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:22 -0400, Jonathan Jesse wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Jonathan Jesse <jjesse at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>         
>         
>         
>         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
>                 
>                   :
>                 >
>                 https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-centralized-services-administrator
>                 
>                 
>                 I'm not sure how best to contribute, so I'll start
>                 with a few comments
>                 here first.
>                 
>                 Rationale
>                 ---------
>                 
>                 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
>                 https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
>                 More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>                 
>         
>         Dan,
>          
>         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 to me.
>          
>         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
>  
> Replying to my own post:
>  
> I think we should mandate a GUI environment.  Something that can be
> schedued to run over and over again
> Nicolas,
> Just wonder if this is something that should be targeted to Intrepid
> +1?  That way we can run it and test it for intrepid and move forward
> as we work towards the next ZLTS
> 
-- 
aka nxvl
Key fingerprint = BCE4 27A0 D03E 55DE DA2D  BE06 891D 8DEE 6545 97FE
gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 654597FE

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/attachments/20080604/4e20d7bf/attachment.pgp>


More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list