[occi-wg] Notes on monitoring call

[Augusto Ciuffoletti]

A new version is available on the repository and also attached: focus on
the collector, more relevance to the single collector case. Comments
welcome...


2013/4/4 Augusto Ciuffoletti <augusto at di.unipi.it>

> I understand your point.
>
> One option is the following: start the description from the collector
> (instead of from the sensor) and describe it as potentially stand alone.
> Next introduce the sensor as the place where filtering, aggregation,
> accounting etc. takes place.
>
>
>
> 2013/4/4 Andy Edmonds <andrew.edmonds at zhaw.ch>
>
>> A suggestion: let's place the topic of monitoring on the next confcall.
>> Regarding the simple model, rather than placed in the appendix, this should
>> in fact form the core of the specification with things related to
>> monitoring workflows building upon subsequently detailed.
>>
>> Andy Edmonds Æ
>> Senior Researcher
>> Institute of Information Technology
>> Zürich University of Applied Sciences
>> http://www.cloudcomp.ch, @dizz
>>
>>
>> On 2 April 2013 18:10, Augusto Ciuffoletti <augusto at di.unipi.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> here following is a short memo I did for myself about last call. I can
>>> add further points, if needed: please let me know.
>>>
>>> Subtyping vs Collection: in the document the collection is used to
>>> denote a subtyping relationship between mixins: this is inconsistent with
>>> sect. 4.4.8 in the core document (collection is for instances). Use
>>> subtyping/related as defined in 4.4.4 in the core document. Add a statement
>>> about this in the doc.
>>>
>>> The simplest case has an interest since it models existing cases (like
>>> Cloudwatch). Maybe I will add an appendix with the figures illustrated in
>>> the paper, but avoiding volatile references.
>>>
>>> I did not reply to a question about how to browse a mixin sub-type.
>>> There is one bug: AggregatorSet instead of "Computetool" in the "POST". In
>>> fact the example is incomplete in that respect, and an example should be
>>> added to the document. Although conceptually clear, the exact format for a
>>> query is not explicit in the documents I know. Basically this is a GET with
>>> a filter: my guess is the following.
>>>
>>> > GET /-/monitoring/aggregatorset HTTP/1.1
>>> > ...
>>> > term = "threshold"
>>>
>>> Not very powerful, but probably good for the task. Right?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Augusto
>>>
>>> --
>>> Augusto Ciuffoletti
>>> Dipartimento di Informatica
>>> Università di Pisa
>>> 56100 - Pisa (Italy)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Augusto Ciuffoletti
> Dipartimento di Informatica
> Università di Pisa
> 56100 - Pisa (Italy)
>



-- 
Augusto Ciuffoletti
Dipartimento di Informatica
Università di Pisa
56100 - Pisa (Italy)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20130405/24d058e0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OCCI_monitoring.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 347444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20130405/24d058e0/attachment-0001.pdf>