4 ms·
I don't get this. They say "Monitoring the state of a Kubernetes cluster is not straightforward using traditional monitoring tools." but they didn't try monitor
by sciurus 11y ago
I don't get this. They say "Monitoring the state of a Kubernetes cluster is not straightforward using traditional monitoring tools." but they didn't try monitoring it using a traditional monitoring tool. They tried monit, which is a process watchdog that's limited to a single host.
In the end it sounds like they created three things
1) Health checks of a kubernetes cluster's individual components
2) End-to-end checks of a kubernetes cluster's functionality
3) A distributed monitoring system for running those checks
I'm pretty sure they could have plugged their checks into e.g. Nagios (which is about as traditional as you can get) and been fine.
- alexk 11y agoThink of it as a system of low level K8s specific checks that is designed to be autonomous and does not need a third-party to run. Regardless of any node failures we can still get the diangostic information about cluster state (as long as there at least one node left). We actually plug in these checks to a higher-level monitoring and metrics system (in our case it's InfluxDB and not Nagios as you've suggested)