Clustered Windows services will give you the same output with the running
on xy-host.
Only difference is that the local check put it in front of the normal check
result.
In the end it makes more sense this way as check_mk cannot handle
active-active cluster settings with the normal mechanic. But it is possible
with the local check clusters.

Best regards
Andreas

kohly <check...@kohly.de> schrieb am Fr., 2. Feb. 2018, 06:33:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> it isn't a real problem, but isn't it abnormal that all but the local
> checks produces a 'normal' output even on a clustered host?
> i only wonder about the different behavior.
>
> br
>
> Kohly
>
>
> Am 01.02.2018 um 22:52 schrieb Andreas Döhler:
>
> Hi Kohly,
>
> where is the problem? If you cluster a local check then on the cluster
> resource you see the originator of this check result.
> In you case the check result was produced on hv02.chaos.inc and then
> clustered on your cluster resource.
> Is there any error message or unwanted output with the clustered checks?
>
> With clustered local checks you have the possibility to decide if the end
> result should be the best state or the worst state of all single states.
> In you case this is not relevant as only one node is producing a local
> check result. But with more nodes producing the same local check
> it will help to build a cluster state for this local check.
>
> br
> Andreas
>
> <check...@kohly.de> schrieb am Mi., 31. Jan. 2018 um 21:33 Uhr:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found that all local checks on a cluster node has a different output
>> than on a unclusterd node.
>>
>> In example i monitor the signal strength of two vdr systems, one on a
>> clustered pve workstation and the other on an unclustered stand alone
>> system.
>> The cluster only includes the pve services like vms and network
>> interfaces.
>>
>> The output is as follows:
>>
>> unclustered node:
>> OK - VDR plugin femon sgnl is at 60 %
>> clusterd node
>> OK - On node hv02.chaos.inc: OK - VDR plugin femon sgnl is at 73 %
>>
>> The local plugin is the same on both nodes.
>>
>> And now _The Question of all Questions_:
>> Is this the wanted behavior?
>>
>> Hint: The answer is not 42. ;)
>>
>> Br.
>> Kohly
>> _______________________________________________
>> checkmk-en mailing list
>> checkmk-en@lists.mathias-kettner.de
>> http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> checkmk-en mailing list
> checkmk-en@lists.mathias-kettner.de
> http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en
_______________________________________________
checkmk-en mailing list
checkmk-en@lists.mathias-kettner.de
http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en

Reply via email to