2011-07-31 22:17:51 by jdixon
I've discovered that restoring a user account from a Snow Leopard (10.6) Time Machine backup to a new system running Lion (10.7) fails to preserve membership in gid 20(staff). I don't know if this only affects users in this particular scenario or might affect other upgrades/fresh instsalls, but it certainly bit me in the ass. I first encountered problems when trying to brew update, only to discover that it wouldn't let me write anything to /usr/local even though the directory had group-write permissions. Lo and behold, I finally realized that my membership had been revoked.
$ id uid=501(jdixon) gid=501(jdixon) groups=501(jdixon),401(com.apple.access_screensharing),12(everyone),33(_appstore), 61(localaccounts),80(admin),98(_lpadmin),100(_lpoperator),204(_developer), 101(com.apple.access_ssh),402(com.apple.sharepoint.group.1)
The fix is simple enough. Use dscl to add yourself back to the staff group membership.
$ sudo dscl . append /Groups/staff GroupMembership `whoami`
- Comments (1)
2011-07-15 16:54:34 by jdixon
I'm pleased to see so many people interested in the #monitoringsucks movement/campaign/whatever. My last post seemed to resonate with a lot of you out there. I'm excited to hear discussions surrounding APIs, command-line monitors, monitoring frameworks, etc. But I think a major thrust of my article was missed. It's not just that Nagios can be a pain in the ass, or that we need a modular monitoring system. What I'm trying to emphasize is that monolithic monitoring systems are bad and not suited for the task at hand.
Some very smart systems people (and developers) are trying to solve this problem in the open-source arena. Unfortunately, while they're attempting to diagnose and cure the problems in contemporary monitoring systems, they continue to architect big honking inflexible software projects. When I refer to "the Voltron of monitoring systems" I'm not talking about an enormous fucking automaton of monitoring, alerting and trending components. I mean that each component should exist independently of the others, with a stable data format and communications API. Any single component should be easily replaceable and deprecated. Authors should strive for competition because it makes the inclusive architecture that much stronger.
Realistically I see one of three things happening over the next 12-18 months:
- A community forms around a reasonable set of defined components and begins cranking out useful bits. Over time we have what resembles a useful ecosphere of monitoring tools and users.
- Motivated developers continue to solve the issues affecting monitoring software, but in their own walled garden projects. We benefit from a larger pool of projects to choose from, but they all continue to suffer from NIH syndrome.
- I'm disregarded as a nutcase. Nothing changes and we continue to use the same crappy ubiquitous software.
At this point I think the most likely outcome is a combination of numbers 1 and 2. It's hard for anyone to justify working on a disassociated component when the related components it needs to be useful might never be developed. On the other hand, if someone working on a monolithic project has the foresight to break up the bits into a true Service Oriented Architecture, then it would be feasible for external developers to fork individual units.
- Comments (6)
2011-07-11 11:59:56 by jdixon
I'm proud to announce that I'll be starting at Heroku in a couple of weeks. This is an exciting opportunity to work at a place that breathes DevOps and eats Infrastructure as Code. Whenever you hear someone describing "Platform as a Service", there's a good chance that Heroku will be the example they're talking about.
I first met Mark Imbriaco (@markimbriaco) when he was the Operations Manager at 37signals. Mark's a level-headed guy with a undeniable talent for Web Operations and an excellent track record for supporting his customers. It was no surprise to me when he took over as the Director of Cloud Operations at Heroku. Even after the acquisition by Salesforce.com last December, they've continued to innovate at a breakneck speed (proof here, here, here and here).
Heroku development and operations teams get to work on the sort of rapid scaling and engineering challenges that pique my interest. I'm doubly excited to be able to share the fact that I'll be joining up simultaneously with Curt Micol (@asenchi) as the newest Operations Engineers on Mark's team. It's an odd coincidence that we're both big fans of BSD. Hopefully nobody holds that against us. ;-).
Needless to say I'm thrilled about the whole thing and hope that it gives me more cool stuff to write about here. Stay tuned.
- Comments (2)
2011-07-07 23:45:30 by jdixon
For as long as I can remember, systems administrators have bitched about the state of monitoring. Now, depending on who you ask, you might get a half dozen (or more) answers as to what "monitoring" actually means. Monitoring is most commonly used as a casual catch-all term to describe one or more pieces of software that perform host and service monitoring and basic trending (graphs or charts). But in most cases, these complaints are targeted at software responsible for daily fault detection and notifications for IT shops and Web Operations. The usual whipping boy is Nagios, a popular open-source monitoring project that supports a universe of host and service checks, notifications, escalations and more.
Nagios has been the "lesser of all evils" for quite some time. Its cost (free), extensibility (high) and configuration flexibility have helped it achieve significant adoption levels across a variety of industries and range of business sizes, from small one-man web startups to Fortune 500 enterprises. It's been forked multiple times and is recognized by industry analysts as a force to be reckoned with. Regardless, those who use it, do so with a fair amount of hostility. Ask around and you're likely to find more users who stay with Nagios because it's "good enough" than those who actually like it. So why doesn't Nagios have more competition in the open-source marketplace? Largely because writing an entire monitoring system from scratch is an enormous undertaking. Ok, does that mean we should keep improving Nagios (or forking it... again)? Perhaps.
- Comments (10)