Le 18/06/2012 14:44, nap a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Paul Ezvan <p...@ezvan.fr> wrote: >> Hi ! >> I am wondering if, in the case of a distributed setup with two >> active >> schedulers (no spare), if one die the other would take over the >> first >> one's checks ? >> I've done some test about that : >> - during the first attempt without status retention, the scheduler >> took >> over the other checks; >> - during the second attempt with distributed (mongo) status >> retention, >> the second scheduler didn't take over the other checks at first >> view, >> and then I had issues with the broker so I cannot see anything >> anymore >> :-( >> >> Thanks for your help. > Hi, > > The strange case is the first one. There is no mixed between packs. > For HA, use spare + distributed retention :) > > > Jean >
Hi, does the same answer apply to the pollers ? Thanks ! Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Shinken-devel mailing list Shinken-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel
