[hobbit] Some thoughts on clustered hobbit

[Henrik Stoerner]

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 04:19:43PM -0500, Kauffman, Tom wrote:

> Henrik -- check me on this: it's my impression we no longer need a
> 'BBPAGER' entry on the client-side bb-hosts because the hobbit server
> passes all potentially alertable statuses to hobbit-alert and it decides
> if an alert is really required.

Correct.

In fact it does make sense to remove it, because then the client will
not initiate a connection to the server to send the "page" message -
which hobbitd promptly just discards.

> Brian -- no offense, but I would rather categorise your configuration as
> "active/inactive". I'm looking at doing an "active/passive" cluster when
> time frees up -- about a month from now. The difference? I'm running two
> hobbit/apache instances all the time -- but the 'passive' (fallover)
> side is not doing alerting or network tests. It does build displays
> (it's my technical documentation server as well) and it does keep both
> history and rrd data updated. Both hosts show up on the client side as
> 'BBDISPLAY'. On failover it will take over the IP address for the hobbit
> display and re-launch hobbit with network testing and alerting enabled.

That would certainly be interesting for me as well - it's the kind of
setup I plan to implement when I get time.


Regards,
Henrik