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 >> firstname.lastname@example.org >> http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en >> > > _______________________________________________ > checkmk-en mailing list > email@example.com > http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en
_______________________________________________ checkmk-en mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.mathias-kettner.de/mailman/listinfo/checkmk-en