1 =======================
2 Ganeti monitoring agent
3 =======================
5 .. contents:: :depth: 4
7 This is a design document detailing the implementation of a Ganeti
8 monitoring agent report system, that can be queried by a monitoring
9 system to calculate health information for a Ganeti cluster.
11 Current state and shortcomings
12 ==============================
14 There is currently no monitoring support in Ganeti. While we don't want
15 to build something like Nagios or Pacemaker as part of Ganeti, it would
16 be useful if such tools could easily extract information from a Ganeti
17 machine in order to take actions (example actions include logging an
18 outage for future reporting or alerting a person or system about it).
23 Each Ganeti node should export a status page that can be queried by a
24 monitoring system. Such status page will be exported on a network port
25 and will be encoded in JSON (simple text) over HTTP.
27 The choice of json is obvious as we already depend on it in Ganeti and
28 thus we don't need to add extra libraries to use it, as opposed to what
29 would happen for XML or some other markup format.
31 Location of agent report
32 ------------------------
34 The report will be available from all nodes, and be concerned for all
35 node-local resources. This allows more real-time information to be
36 available, at the cost of querying all nodes.
41 The monitoring agent system will report on the following basic information:
44 - Instance disk status
45 - Status of storage for instances
46 - Ganeti daemons status, CPU usage, memory footprint
47 - Hypervisor resources report (memory, CPU, network interfaces)
48 - Node OS resources report (memory, CPU, network interfaces)
49 - Information from a plugin system
54 At the moment each node knows which instances are running on it, which
55 instances it is primary for, but not the cause why an instance might not
56 be running. On the other hand we don't want to distribute full instance
57 "admin" status information to all nodes, because of the performance
58 impact this would have.
60 As such we propose that:
62 - Any operation that can affect instance status will have an optional
63 "reason" attached to it (at opcode level). This can be used for
64 example to distinguish an admin request, from a scheduled maintenance
65 or an automated tool's work. If this reason is not passed, Ganeti will
66 just use the information it has about the source of the request: for
67 example a cli shutdown operation will have "cli:shutdown" as a reason,
68 a cli failover operation will have "cli:failover". Operations coming
69 from the remote API will use "rapi" instead of "cli". Of course
70 setting a real site-specific reason is still preferred.
71 - RPCs that affect the instance status will be changed so that the
72 "reason" and the version of the config object they ran on is passed to
73 them. They will then export the new expected instance status, together
74 with the associated reason and object version to the status report
75 system, which then will export those themselves.
77 Monitoring and auditing systems can then use the reason to understand
78 the cause of an instance status, and they can use the object version to
79 understand the freshness of their data even in the absence of an atomic
80 cross-node reporting: for example if they see an instance "up" on a node
81 after seeing it running on a previous one, they can compare these values
82 to understand which data is freshest, and repoll the "older" node. Of
83 course if they keep seeing this status this represents an error (either
84 an instance continuously "flapping" between nodes, or an instance is
85 constantly up on more than one), which should be reported and acted
88 The instance status will be on each node, for the instances it is
89 primary for and will contain at least:
92 - The instance UUID (stable on name change)
93 - The instance running status (up or down)
94 - The timestamp of last known change
95 - The timestamp of when the status was last checked (see caching, below)
96 - The last known reason for change, if any
98 More information about all the fields and their type will be available
99 in the "Format of the report" section.
101 Note that as soon as a node knows it's not the primary anymore for an
102 instance it will stop reporting status for it: this means the instance
103 will either disappear, if it has been deleted, or appear on another
104 node, if it's been moved.
109 As for the instance status Ganeti has now only partial information about
110 its instance disks: in particular each node is unaware of the disk to
111 instance mapping, that exists only on the master.
113 For this design doc we plan to fix this by changing all RPCs that create
114 a backend storage or that put an already existing one in use and passing
115 the relevant instance to the node. The node can then export these to the
116 status reporting tool.
118 While we haven't implemented these RPC changes yet, we'll use confd to
119 fetch this information in the data collector.
121 Since Ganeti supports many type of disks for instances (drbd, rbd,
122 plain, file) we will export both a "generic" status which will work for
123 any type of disk and will be very opaque (at minimum just an "healthy"
124 or "error" state, plus perhaps some human readable comment and a
125 "per-type" status which will explain more about the internal details but
126 will not be compatible between different storage types (and will for
127 example export the drbd connection status, sync, and so on).
129 Status of storage for instances
130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
132 The node will also be reporting on all storage types it knows about for
133 the current node (this is right now hardcoded to the enabled storage
134 types, and in the future tied to the enabled storage pools for the
135 nodegroup). For this kind of information also we will report both a
136 generic health status (healthy or error) for each type of storage, and
137 some more generic statistics (free space, used space, total visible
138 space). In addition type specific information can be exported: for
139 example, in case of error, the nature of the error can be disclosed as a
140 type specific information. Examples of these are "backend pv
141 unavailable" for lvm storage, "unreachable" for network based storage or
142 "filesystem error" for filesystem based implementations.
144 Ganeti daemons status
145 +++++++++++++++++++++
147 Ganeti will report what information it has about its own daemons: this
148 includes memory usage, uptime, CPU usage. This should allow identifying
149 possible problems with the Ganeti system itself: for example memory
150 leaks, crashes and high resource utilization should be evident by
151 analyzing this information.
153 Ganeti daemons will also be able to export extra internal information to
154 the status reporting, through the plugin system (see below).
156 Hypervisor resources report
157 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
159 Each hypervisor has a view of system resources that sometimes is
160 different than the one the OS sees (for example in Xen the Node OS,
161 running as Dom0, has access to only part of those resources). In this
162 section we'll report all information we can in a "non hypervisor
163 specific" way. Each hypervisor can then add extra specific information
164 that is not generic enough be abstracted.
166 Node OS resources report
167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
169 Since Ganeti assumes it's running on Linux, it's useful to export some
170 basic information as seen by the host system. This includes number and
171 status of CPUs, memory, filesystems and network intefaces as well as the
172 version of components Ganeti interacts with (Linux, drbd, hypervisor,
175 Note that we won't go into any hardware specific details (e.g. querying a
176 node RAID is outside the scope of this, and can be implemented as a
177 plugin) but we can easily just report the information above, since it's
178 standard enough across all systems.
183 The monitoring system will be equipped with a plugin system that can
184 export specific local information through it. The plugin system will be
185 in the form of either scripts whose output will be inserted in the
186 report, plain text files which will be inserted into the report, or
187 local unix or network sockets from which the information has to be read.
188 This should allow most flexibility for implementing an efficient system,
189 while being able to keep it as simple as possible.
191 The plugin system is expected to be used by local installations to
192 export any installation specific information that they want to be
193 monitored, about either hardware or software on their systems.
199 The query will be an HTTP GET request on a particular port. At the
200 beginning it will only be possible to query the full status report.
206 TBD (this part needs to be completed with the format of the JSON and the
207 types of the various variables exported, as they get evaluated and
214 In order to ease testing as well as to make it simple to reuse this
215 subsystem it will be possible to run just the "data collectors" on each
216 node without passing through the agent daemon. Each data collector will
217 report specific data about its subsystem and will be documented
224 In order to be able to report information fast the monitoring agent
225 daemon will keep an in-memory or on-disk cache of the status, which will
226 be returned when queries are made. The status system will then
227 periodically check resources to make sure the status is up to date.
229 Different parts of the report will be queried at different speeds. These
231 - how often they vary (or we expect them to vary)
232 - how fast they are to query
233 - how important their freshness is
235 Of course the last parameter is installation specific, and while we'll
236 try to have defaults, it will be configurable. The first two instead we
237 can use adaptively to query a certain resource faster or slower
238 depending on those two parameters.
244 The status daemon will be implemented as a standalone Haskell daemon. In
245 the future it should be easy to merge multiple daemons into one with
246 multiple entry points, should we find out it saves resources and doesn't
247 impact functionality.
249 The libekg library should be looked at for easily providing metrics in
256 We will implement the agent system in this order:
258 - initial example data collectors (eg. for drbd and instance status)
259 - initial daemon for exporting data
260 - RPC updates for instance status reasons and disk to instance mapping
261 - more data collectors
262 - cache layer for the daemon (if needed)
268 As a future step it can be useful to "centralize" all this reporting
269 data on a single place. This for example can be just the master node, or
270 all the master candidates. We will evaluate doing this after the first
271 node-local version has been developed and tested.
273 Another possible change is replacing the "read-only" RPCs with queries
274 to the agent system, thus having only one way of collecting information
275 from the nodes from a monitoring system and for Ganeti itself.
277 One extra feature we may need is a way to query for only sub-parts of
278 the report (eg. instances status only). This can be done by passing
279 arguments to the HTTP GET, which will be defined when we get to this
282 Finally the :doc:`autorepair system design <design-autorepair>`. system
283 (see its design) can be expanded to use the monitoring agent system as a
284 source of information to decide which repairs it can perform.
286 .. vim: set textwidth=72 :
projects / ganeti-local / blob