On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 21:14 +0100, nap wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Gerhard Lausser > <gerhard.laus...@consol.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > change this in the future, or even better, if it is possible > > to have distributed passive service checks in some form with > > what exactly do you mean by that? From the clients' view there > is one > ip-address where nsca messages are to be sent to. > The weak point here is, when Shinken performs an arbiter > failover, the > nsca-listener gets another address. I have no idea how to > handle this > except by integrating the arbiter in some cluster framework > with a virtual > address. > Yes, the only solution is a VIP between the two receiver or arbiter > IP. But it's quite easy to setup, so it's not a big deal :)
A VIP when both machines are on different (geographical) sites ? That is at best extremely inconvenient... -- Marc-Olivier Barre Avencall 10 bis, rue Lucien Voilin - 92800 Puteaux Tél. : 0811 85 9486 (0811 85 XIVO) http://www.avencall.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Shinken-devel mailing list Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
