So I changed cacti to use cacti internal auth (instead of http auth). So its public now:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/cacti/graph_view.php
The bad news is I have to create users individually now in cacti. If you need access to alter things just let me know and I'll get you set up.
-Mike
Cool. Please note the only time I have ever had an issue with the security of any of my Fedora/RHEL servers was when running cacti.
Jon
Mike McGrath wrote:
So I changed cacti to use cacti internal auth (instead of http auth). So its public now:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/cacti/graph_view.php
The bad news is I have to create users individually now in cacti. If you need access to alter things just let me know and I'll get you set up.
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 19:30 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
So I changed cacti to use cacti internal auth (instead of http auth). So its public now:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/cacti/graph_view.php
The bad news is I have to create users individually now in cacti. If you need access to alter things just let me know and I'll get you set up.
Heyah
Can you give me access?
Cheers
Doug
On 5/6/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
So I changed cacti to use cacti internal auth (instead of http auth). So its public now:
Why in instead cacti should used http://www.zenoss.com/ ?
Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
Why in instead cacti should used http://www.zenoss.com/ ?
AFAIK, zenoss isn't in Fedora yet.
-Mike
Mike McGrath wrote:
Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
Why in instead cacti should used http://www.zenoss.com/ ?
AFAIK, zenoss isn't in Fedora yet.
I believe Scott over at atomicrocketturtle.com was looking into packaging Zenoss, but found the code was pretty messy. Binaries in source rpms, different source rpms for different distributions... I believe there is some work to do there. But it looks like a pretty nice monitoring solution. I use ZABBIX http://www.zabbix.com/ myself.
Nils Breunese.
On Monday 07 May 2007 12:11:15 Nils Breunese wrote:
I believe Scott over at atomicrocketturtle.com was looking into packaging Zenoss, but found the code was pretty messy. Binaries in source rpms, different source rpms for different distributions... I believe there is some work to do there. But it looks like a pretty nice monitoring solution. I use ZABBIX http://www.zabbix.com/ myself.
IIRC much of this was cleaned up as Zenoss is going to be in RHX (Red Hat eXchange) and thus they had to clean up their packaging a LOT. It would be worth looking at again.
I sat in their presentation at Linux Fest Northwest and it was really good stuff, and I had some talks with their PR and lead technical folks, they're really excited to get into Fedora.
The only down side is that they use plone, and that's a no-go for F7 right now.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 07 May 2007 12:11:15 Nils Breunese wrote:
I believe Scott over at atomicrocketturtle.com was looking into packaging Zenoss, but found the code was pretty messy. Binaries in source rpms, different source rpms for different distributions... I believe there is some work to do there. But it looks like a pretty nice monitoring solution. I use ZABBIX http://www.zabbix.com/ myself.
IIRC much of this was cleaned up as Zenoss is going to be in RHX (Red Hat eXchange) and thus they had to clean up their packaging a LOT. It would be worth looking at again.
I sat in their presentation at Linux Fest Northwest and it was really good stuff, and I had some talks with their PR and lead technical folks, they're really excited to get into Fedora.
The only down side is that they use plone, and that's a no-go for F7 right now.
Maybe they are willing to put in the effort to make Plone work with Python 2.5 and maintain zenoss in Fedora? Doesn't hurt to use the contacts and ask.
Rahul
On Monday 07 May 2007 12:25:21 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Maybe they are willing to put in the effort to make Plone work with Python 2.5 and maintain zenoss in Fedora? Doesn't hurt to use the contacts and ask.
I already informed them of the situation.
I've looked at http://www.zenoss.com/ when Jesse mentioned it on IRC. I want to use it and if it needs to be packaged....
I suppose I will look at how much work it would be.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 07 May 2007 12:25:21 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Maybe they are willing to put in the effort to make Plone work with Python 2.5 and maintain zenoss in Fedora? Doesn't hurt to use the contacts and ask.
I already informed them of the situation.
Oh, you mean the situation where we have no support for Zope, and now no support for Plone and... oh, we find another neat software that runs on Zope and it wont work? ;-)
Just kidding. I'll report back about what I think it will take to package this in sort time.
Jonathan
Mike,
I was looking into cacti and about to add app5 there, then i canceled that since i had to do something else, and now no graphs show in the tree view, even so i see all devices and graphs in edit mode.
Any idea ?!
Paulo
On 5/7/07, Jonathan Steffan jonathansteffan@gmail.com wrote:
I've looked at http://www.zenoss.com/ when Jesse mentioned it on IRC. I want to use it and if it needs to be packaged....
I suppose I will look at how much work it would be.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 07 May 2007 12:25:21 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Maybe they are willing to put in the effort to make Plone work with Python 2.5 and maintain zenoss in Fedora? Doesn't hurt to use the contacts and ask.
I already informed them of the situation.
Oh, you mean the situation where we have no support for Zope, and now no support for Plone and... oh, we find another neat software that runs on Zope and it wont work? ;-)
Just kidding. I'll report back about what I think it will take to package this in sort time.
Jonathan
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Mike,
Raritan may still be willing to offer up our Command Center NOC product. We will be releasing a free version soon. You can already get a node limited version for free.
http://www.commandcenter-noc.com http://www.raritan.com
Matt Pusateri Systems Admin Raritan
On 5/7/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Wilmer Jaramillo M. wrote:
Why in instead cacti should used http://www.zenoss.com/ ?
AFAIK, zenoss isn't in Fedora yet.
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Flatfender wrote:
Mike,
Raritan may still be willing to offer up our Command Center NOC product. We will be releasing a free version soon. You can already get a node limited version for free.
Thanks for the offer, we really appreciate it but we're a 100% FLOSS shop. Do you happen to offer a GPL version :) ?
-Mike
There's no GPL version yet, but one may be in the works. I still don't really understand the difference if we donate an appliance versus someone else donating a switch or load balancer, etc.
I'll keep you posted if we the decision goes through for a GPL release.
Matt
On 6/11/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Flatfender wrote:
Mike,
Raritan may still be willing to offer up our Command Center NOC product. We will be releasing a free version soon. You can already get a node limited version for free.
Thanks for the offer, we really appreciate it but we're a 100% FLOSS shop. Do you happen to offer a GPL version :) ?
-Mike
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
Flatfender wrote:
There's no GPL version yet, but one may be in the works. I still don't really understand the difference if we donate an appliance versus someone else donating a switch or load balancer, etc.
I'll keep you posted if we the decision goes through for a GPL release.
Its mostly just viability. I'm not aware of any great open source switches. And as far as load balancing goes much of it is done with mod_proxy_balancer these days and is included with apache. Seriously though, we do appreciate the offer.
-Mike
On 6/11/07, Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com wrote:
Flatfender wrote:
There's no GPL version yet, but one may be in the works. I still don't really understand the difference if we donate an appliance versus someone else donating a switch or load balancer, etc.
I'll keep you posted if we the decision goes through for a GPL release.
Its mostly just viability. I'm not aware of any great open source switches. And as far as load balancing goes much of it is done with mod_proxy_balancer these days and is included with apache. Seriously though, we do appreciate the offer.
-Mike
OK, viability point is valid and taken. Switch/Load balancer might have been a poorer argument. But to me an appliance in my mind is a distinguishing factor over just offering a software solution. It would be more equivalent to saying you'd have to give up your Netapp disk space. Isn't that just a big disk appliance that's donated?
I won't belabor the argument any more :)
Matt
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Douglas Furlong -
Flatfender -
Jesse Keating -
Jonathan Steffan -
Mike McGrath -
Nils Breunese -
Paulo Santos -
Rahul Sundaram -
Wilmer Jaramillo M.