Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Right, we don't want to give the monitoring software an OS login
>> for the database servers, for security reasons.
>
> depending on what you exactly mean by that I do have to wonder how
> you monitor more complex stuff (or stuff that require elevated
> privs) - say raid health, multipath configuration, status of OS
> level updates, "are certain processes running or not" as well as
> basic parameters like CPU or IO load. as in stuff you cannot know
> usless you have it exported through "some" port.
Many of those are monitored on the server one way or another,
through a hardware card accessible only to the DBAs. The card sends
an email to the DBAs for any sort of distress, including impending
or actual drive failure, ambient temperature out of bounds, internal
or external power out of bounds, etc. OS updates are managed by the
DBAs through scripts. Ideally we would tie these in to our opcenter
software, which displays status through hundreds of "LED" boxes on
big plasma displays in our support areas (and can send emails and
jabber messages when things get to a bad state), but since the
messages are getting to the right people in a timely manner, this is
a low priority as far as monitoring enhancement requests go.
Only the DBAs have OS logins to database servers. Monitoring
software must deal with application ports (which have to be open
anyway, so that doesn't add any security risk). Since the hardware
monitoring doesn't know about file systems, and the disk space on
database servers is primarily an issue for the database, it made
sense to us to add the ability to check the space available to the
database through a database connection. Hence, fsutil.
-Kevin
