:: Re: [DNG] Mirror 141.84.43.19 - Fre…
Página Inicial
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autor: Bernard Rosset
Data:  
Para: dng
Assunto: Re: [DNG] Mirror 141.84.43.19 - Frequent unavailability
Thx Evilham for your answer. Glad it was not sinkholed ;o)

> FWIW: I've been running "while; curl; sleep 30" as a similar test for a
> good few minutes now and it's been solid.


Yup, as I stated before in my report, nothing wrong had been detected
since 1100Z, ie almost 6h ago.

I have been using a simple shell shell (see what I did?) around nc -z
sending notifications... Truly nothing high-tech. At all. PoC?

> But maybe it'll be interesting to add simple monitoring at a connection
> level same way you ran your tests.
> I'll try to setup a thing in the next couple days.


I was actually thinking about ways of involving the community, whose
kind members already are actively participating in mirrors & such, in a
distributed monitoring array.
While heavy checks might be run on more central, tighly-controlled
components, availability checks could be run from anyone's scheduled
tasks manager, and might be aggregated as "pods" in (a) monitoring
instance(s) responsible to store & display results?

I was thinking simple checks run as scheduled tasks, collection through
rsyslog. For the displaying part YMMV, depending on which you merely
wanna display or allow viewers to query on the dataset... hence either a
static display or more evolved stuff like Grafana.

Has anyone built such a thing recently with maybe more proper
architectures, yet agent-less, than this one?
The usual monitoring setups I encountered so far tended to be locked to
the previously chosen tech... for better or worse. Decoupling is good.

This would pave the way for check coming from many
networks/IX/equipments/hosters, etc. balancing/nullifying observation
biases.

> If we get more reports we totally will, so far everything is "looking
> good" and all tests pass, but maybe there is indeed something inherently
> spotty on the connection and that's what you are seeing; we'll see if
> with more data or more reports or when the maintainer takes a look
> something changes.


IIUC, this lack of detection seems to be coming from the lack of
monitoring... hence my ping/call to the community :o)
Anyone jumping on board is warmly welcome!

Bernard Rosset
https://rosset.net/