[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] [re-post] xymon notifications
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] [re-post] xymon notifications
- From: Ralph Mitchell <ralphmitchell (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 14:30:59 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=v7tJ6ZEhbDjqdUA+9gIujxP+1UdfHxijRl7Wd1h9Rxo=; b=Pa7vYxBg2uoXy2ebbbsav2P8xxwGHPZCFoSeR+EFm2c5lf2E45qHuZWOg5Aw4llri6 9JhlVuzQ3MKtXqGKrRpNZ9NVVrlPQPP8NMprXQkCd4qmVPckWBbxBJ6utbv3psXX7Dox xfi84L6WL8CQC9p4zg6I1Zx/38Nzj4ZLycqRA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=B7EHmFvpHwCeZQuHxuEPA3mhjewxnv/8W/5yDSf/DHDFADNriLWELSMdl92aqhbwYn XxWQ4ejrUDW9p/c03DVYve5vfsuYDJGfrXkHJL1AFu3LhJgwGACh4s1niCerpq3p2qxy kFuJIFk9vEfSSBw7ZLSzggl3/t+dqJvqrDl0I=
- References: <4A1D8E86.5060506 (at) tmsusa.com>
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM, J Sloan <joe (at) tmsusa.com> wrote:
> We've been running big brother for some years, and we monitor several
> hundred servers in 2 data centers.
>
> We are currently running a pilot of xymon (4.3.0 svn), and just as with
> big brother, we have redundant monitoring servers. A xymon server in
> california monitors hosts in both california and arizona, and a xymon
> server in arizona monitors hosts in both data centers as well.
>
> For the most part, xymon is performing well, but it is a bit of an
> annoyance with xymon that we get duplicate notifications, as each xymon
> server sends it's own notifications for every event.
>
> Big brother sends a single notification for each event, as controlled by
> the alerting failover.
>
> Is there any way to suppress the duplicate notifications from xymon?
I don't think xymon has failover yet. How are you sending the alerts?? If
you're using a script, you could make the script on the backup server run a
check against the primary. If it fails, allow the backup to send out the
notifications. Not perfect, but it could at least reduce the duplicates.
Ralph Mitchell