My problem with the multicast configuration is that every node on my subnet is maintaining an in memory copy of the data for the entire cluster, Gmond therefore as a memory footprint of about 45Mb for 150 nodes. Thats a significant chunk of memory, and really I think it is inappropriate for a monitoring tool to use any significant amount of system resources. The level of redundnacy provided by the multicast solution simply is not required on our network. I am going to try and set up a unicast configuration. Andrew
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 11:59 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:46:21PM -0600, Stephen Cartwright wrote: > > Is multicast really advantageous? I know for what I am trying to do I > > wron't be just monitoring a few nodes on a subnet... I want to monitor > > them all. Why then multicast with the added compexity and having to > > deal with having possibly incompatible hardware? > > On all the systems I'm running, multicast just worked. I don't even > notice the traffic on my 225 node cluster. It's just not an issue. > > > Is it possible to use broadcast and not multicast and is that a good > > idea? Or is the unicast suggestion above the optimal solution in terms > > of overhead? > > If you don't want multicast, just use unicast.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
