Andrew,
Read the documentation and you will see that you can control whether
a daemon sends information, receives information or does both.
(deaf & mute attributes)
This is independent multicast v. unicast.
------
Yemi
On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Andrew Mellanby wrote:
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.
