Re: [hobbit] grouping methods

["Josh Luthman" <josh (at) imaginenetworksllc.com>]

This is quite obviously a well found problem and sought after feature
- getting redundant Hobbit servers.

Please help us, code monkeys =)

Josh

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Sloan <joe (at) tmsusa.com> wrote:
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Not sure what the real reasoning is behind this but if you have 1000
>> servers monitored behind 3 hobbit servers each, figure one Hobbit
>> server goes down you lost 1000/3000 being monitored.  If you have 3000
>> servers being monitored behind 1 hobbit server, that one point of
>> failure leaves you blind of all 3000 servers.
>>
>
> We do it with redundancy. Each server in our various data centers is
> monitored by two bb servers, with one of the two set up to send
> notifications, but in all other aspects the monitoring is active/active, and
> we get only one notification for alerts, rather than a pair of redundant
> notifications.
>
> We've not had a bb server go down in all the years we've been using it, but
> sometimes wan connectivity goes away due to circumstances beyond our
> control, and a bb server in Arizona can't talk to the corresponding bb
> server in California, so the normally passive monitoring server goes into
> failover mode, and begins sending notification for alerts, since it can't
> verify that the other bb server is alive.
>
> Thus, we always receive notifications for all alerts, and in the worst case
> we may get redundant notifications in the case of a split brain situation,
> which is the lesser of the evils.
>
> Once this notification failover capability makes it into hobbit, we can
> finally switch from bb to hobbit.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to
> hobbit-unsubscribe (at) hswn.dk
>
>
>



-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer