[Serdev] SER's core design features(process model/parser/lumps/script) - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Greger V. Teigre]

Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Dragos Vingarzan wrote:
>   
>> =)) SNMP got on my list recently - so I threw the list away :-P.
>>     
>
> Should be rather simple to have SNMP on the side with SER 2.0. However,
> after playing with it for a while I came to the conclusion, that it
> sucks (SNMP, not SER 2.0). I do monitoring with sipsak, serctl, ps, and
> bash.
>   
Just like I do, and most others I believe. But SNMP gives you instant 
support from many tools.
>> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>>     
>>>     But, on the stuff that Martin writes about, operations, change
>>> management, scalability, failover, etc, we have lots to learn. I'm
>>> ashamed that there are no standardized way to monitor SER proxies,
>>>       
>
> That is just plain wrong. You wouldn't really believe I run a large
> scale operation without monitoring my proxies, would you? True, there is
> no drag-and-drop solution. But hey, every decent sysadmin is able to
> write the necessary scripts in a couple of hours.
>   
Of course not, the emphasize was on *standardized* as in following some 
standard and bundled in as part of SER. Why should everybody spend those 
two hours? And why should everybody have to have the knowledge to do 
it?  (yes, yes, that's a minimum competence required to even think about 
running a SIP server. Yes, I know, but my point is: why must everybody 
spend time on boring stuff that should just be there?)
g-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/attachments/20070130/78c48d23/attachment.htm