[Xymon] Xymon swarm proposal

[Matt Vander Werf]

This is probably something that I wouldn't use, as I don't really need it
with my current setup (which is perfectly fine).

I assume that if this functionality was put in place that people who wanted
to keep doing everything local (i.e. on one Xymon server machine) would be
able to continue doing that with minimal necessary changes to the current
setup? In other words, this would be parallel functionality that could be
implemented if desired, but wouldn't necessary affect existing setups that
are all local-based (or at least wouldn't affect them very much).

Is my assumption correct here?

That's my only concern with this, as it seems to be changing *a lot* of
things. This would definitely be the preferred way if this functionally was
implemented, especially for new users of Xymon who don't require this
functionality and for users with smaller setups. Even some changes that
would need to be made would be okay, as long as those necessary changes are
explained.

Thanks.

--
Matt Vander Werf

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Galen Johnson <Galen.Johnson at sas.com>
wrote:

> It's not clear but I only have unidirection access to most of my monitored
> systems so I have to use xymonfetch.  Would this still work where each
> datacenter server could be managed/communicate with a local instance that
> handles the alerts (for example)?  I'm guessing this is so but just want to
> confirm.   Sounds like I'm in a similar situation as Paul...
>
>
> =G=
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Xymon <xymon-bounces at xymon.com> on behalf of Root, Paul T
> <Paul.Root at CenturyLink.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 28, 2015 4:57 PM
> *To:* 'Henrik Størner'; xymon-developer at lists.sourceforge.net; Xymon
> mailinglist
> *Subject:* Re: [Xymon] Xymon swarm proposal
>
>
> I’m  pretty much the customer for this. I have 3 xymon servers, 1 primary
> and 2 backup/proxy servers. With lots of firewalling between them. And with
> those, I have clients that are behind further firewalls.
>
>
>
> Like J.C. related, I really want HA. Both proxies can get to all the same
> things. The primary is a separate network.
>
>
>
> I could adapt to this swarm though. It would work pretty well, I think.
>
>
>
> I would definitely want local and global non-green screens. Maybe
> something along the lines of the summary links that we currently have.
>
>
>
> What about alerts.cfg? Would each machine have its own alerts.cfg, or
> could there be one centralized one?
>
>
>
> Currently, I have one of the proxies monitor the primary, and if
> connectivity (or prog status etc.) is lost, it takes over the full alerts
> configuration.
>
>
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Xymon [mailto:xymon-bounces at xymon.com] *On Behalf Of *Henrik
> Størner
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 28, 2015 5:37 AM
> *To:* xymon-developer at lists.sourceforge.net; Xymon mailinglist
> *Subject:* [Xymon] Xymon swarm proposal
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> the recent talk on xymon-developer about rewriting xymonproxy to support
> TLS, IPv6 and other good stuff made me think about other ways of scaling
> Xymon across large installations.
>
> Which led me to the idea of having multiple independent Xymon servers - a
> swarm, because no one Xymon server depends on the others, but they can
> cooperate.
>
>
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any
> attachments.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xymon mailing list
> Xymon at xymon.com
> http://lists.xymon.com/mailman/listinfo/xymon
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.xymon.com/pipermail/xymon/attachments/20151130/a0d2032d/attachment.html>