> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Krzeminski, Damian (BL60:9D30) > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:03 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [sipX-dev] alarm server in a cluster > > I was reviewing some new issues and future request related to > Alarm Server management and I have a question: > > Does it really make sense to run a separate instance of an > alarm service on each server in the cluster? > > Why can't all services report the alarms to a single instance > of the server. They can be easily configured that way, and it > might make alarm reporting and aggregating simpler. > Thoughts? > D.
It was originally designed that way, and some of the existing config reflects that (for example, ALARM_SERVER_URL in domain-config). However, way back in June, Scott suggested that it would be best left distributed (http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/msg11878.html) and we agreed yesterday in a conversation that that is still desired. I am just starting to clean up the ALARM_SERVER_URL, which does NOT belong in domain-config if we have distributed alarm servers, so let's agree on what we want. Single instance of alarm server on master (or on config_host) + easier to display alarms - they're all in one place o ALARM_SERVER_URL stays in domain-config, with the master hostname. (config_host may eventually be duplicated) - all clients need to pull dest out of domain-config (currently scripts and Java use localhost) - we lose alarms if the master goes down, or the network Alarm server in each node (part of each supervisor) + alarms are logged even if master or network goes down - display of alarms must be aggregated Carolyn _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
