Nagios config -- not xml?

[Brandon Gillespie]

Steve Burton wrote:
 > [..snip..] The complexity is supposed to be in the
 > software, that's why I use/write software, to hide the complexity so I
 > only have to deal with it once.

Then you of all people should understand the desire to have XML.  You 
reduce complexity even IN the software, by using precooked parsing 
routines (there are a few open-source XML parsers, expat comes to mind). 
  It also makes it easier for people writing add-on software of ANY 
variant, to be able to handle the config file format without much grief. 
  As it is now, it becomes more complex because it is a 
custom/proprietary format.  Regardless of the human element, as it is 
now makes it harder and more complex, not vise versa.  Using open/common 
standards makes it easier and less complex, regardless of if the format 
itself is a bit more syntactically heavy (which XML is).

Carroll, Jim P [Contractor] wrote:
 > Looks interesting.  But for my needs, I'd rather not consolidate all
 > the definitions into one mondo config file.  If anything, I'm trying
 > to break my overall config into the smallest chunks possible.

With the current (or future planned) config format (mind you I still 
havn't dug into it all that deeply) can you source-in and reuse configs? 
  A lot of my servers fit a standard profile, a common set of services 
etc.  I could probably create three or four common profiles and be able 
to target 90% of my servers, by just reusing that service list (i.e. 
<host>... <service src=profile1/></host>).  Ultimately, this would make 
it even smaller chunks.  Same thing could be implemented using the 
current format, really has nothing to do with XML.

 > Once 2.0 is released, I intend to create hostname directories (using
 > the recursion feature of cfg_dir which is expected to be available),
 > e.g.:
 >
 > /usr/local/nagios/etc/configs/Solaris/myhost01
 >
 > and within that directory, there would be fragments such as host.cfg,
 > ssh.cfg, http.cfg and whatever other services/dependencies I can put
 > in there.  It would be quite nice if there were some other level of
 > inheritance, so as to save modifying each/every definition with the
 > required hostname.  Create a new host directory, drop in the
 > definitions, and you're pretty much done.

But you end up having redundant data, because it is a copy.  You will 
end up getting document-rot (two copies of similar data and it is 
inevitable you will need to make a common change, and forget to do it in 
one file... rot).


Just having started to dig into nagios, what I have found is configuring 
it is a bitch--not very well documented (sorry!  Lots of docs true, just 
not very straight forward).  The config files have reached a point where 
it IS easier to manage them with a GUI--some have existed for netsaint 
and may be ported some day, maybe not.  The only one i've seen could use 
improvement--it is more work to get it going than it is just to edit 
them by hand (and even then it doesn't work right).  Regardless, this is 
a pain point imho.

And I have no idea why I've been dragged into this debate 8)  What we do 
when in the balloon headed haze of cold medicine.  I _have_ been through 
this discussion before on other issues, and I do believe sticking to an 
XML based standard is better in the long run, all the way around (open 
standards==good).

-Brandon Gillespie

(Oh, and I also use vi <er, vim> to edit my configs :)



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com