3 ms·

I'll have to look at the overlap between Puppet's Windows tools and DSC. These are definitely distinct from monitoring, but monitoring configuration should be

I'll have to look at the overlap between Puppet's Windows tools and DSC. These are definitely distinct from monitoring, but monitoring configuration should be populated from the same configuration store as Puppet. (Sometimes Puppet is the configuration store.) I've never evaluated Orion in particular, but it's slightly puzzling if you're creating a lot of custom monitoring scripts. In the low-touch Nagios deployments I've seen, this is often because someone didn't understand good places to use macros, and centralize more of the parameters.

jacques_chester 13y ago
The problem is due to history. Configuration systems have historically looked at config as bits-on-a-disk. Supervisor systems look at bits-in-memory. And they emerged and evolved independently. So there's pain points and impedance mismatches regardless of which one you start with. What's needed is a system that sees that configuration and supervision are the same problem: you have a directed graph of what a system can look like, plus a compare-and-repair mechanism to drag the system to that state frequently. I've personally looked at Chef, Puppet and Cfengine, none of which really does all of them the way I would like. http://chester.id.au/2012/06/27/a-not-sobrief-aside-on-reigning-in-chaos/ http://chester.id.au/2012/06/27/a-not-sobrief-aside-on-reign...