This is good to know. Seeing as how we are planning to upgrade to Icinga 2 anyway, it sounds like the builtin cluster functionality is the way to go. Thanks for the information!
-----Original Message----- ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:56:44 +0100 From: Michael Friedrich <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [icinga-users] Recommended practice for failover/redundancy? Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Am 31.10.2014 um 02:16 schrieb Michael Martinez: Hi all ? Are the two methods given in the docs Chapter 7.7 still basically the generally accepted practice for redundancy/failover? Or has some other method come into play since these docs were written? Afaik these docs were inherited from Nagios when forked, and apply only to Icinga Core 1.x. Modern systems (our projects at customers for instance) are built using technologies such as pacemaker, corosync, drbd even and additional tools for failover scenarios in an active/passive cluster. Simply said, these docs might work, but are imho not the reality. Using Icinga 2 you'll love the cluster functionality which saves you already an amount of time as application cluster with integrated failover capabilities in an active/active (multiple nodes possible) cluster setup. Kind regards, Michael _______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
