Hi Andrew and all!
> On 05 Jan 2015, at 22:05, Andrew Woodward wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bartosz Kupidura
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Im working on Zabbix implementation which include HA support.
>>
>> Zabbix server should be deployed on all controllers in HA mode.
>
On 01/05/2015 04:05 PM, Andrew Woodward wrote:
Secondly running monitoring on the cluster may
also result in the monitoring going offline if the cluster does, from
my own experience, not being able to see your monitoring is nearly
worse than having everything down and leads to lost precious mom
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bartosz Kupidura
wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> Im working on Zabbix implementation which include HA support.
>
> Zabbix server should be deployed on all controllers in HA mode.
This needs to be discouraged as much as putting mongo-db on the controllers.
> Currently w
Rob,
> This is of limited value to my business due to the GPL license -- so my
> company's lawyers tell me. I will be unable to take advantage of what
> looks to be a solid solution from what I can see of Zabbix. Are there any
> risks to Fuel (open source contamination) from this approach? I d
> Im working on Zabbix implementation which include HA support.
>
> Zabbix server should be deployed on all controllers in HA mode.
But zabbix-server will stay and user will be able to assign this role where
he wants?
If so there will be no limitations on roles allocation strategy that user
can us
For small installs we still have to consider an option of roles
combination, and placing Zabbix on controllers. Fuel disk allocation logic
should be smart and has to allocate separate disk for it where possible.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Stanislaw Bogatkin
wrote:
> Hi Bartosz,
> As for me
Hi Bartosz,
As for me - zabbix is bad practice to place on controller nodes when large
installations will be monitoring, cause it can slow down disk IO on big db.
If it happen - controllers can became unresponsible to other services on
controllers. Zabbix guys recommended to use separate station fo
Regarding the licensing, it should not be an issue because we provide all
source code (if not as git repos, then as source RPMs/DEBs).
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Bartosz Kupidura
wrote:
> Hello Vladimir,
> I agree. But in most cases, zabbix-server would be moved from failed node
> by pacem
Hello Vladimir,
I agree. But in most cases, zabbix-server would be moved from failed node by
pacemaker.
Moreover some clients dont want to „waste” 3 additional servers only for
monitoring.
As i said, this is only first drop of zabbix HA. Later we can allow user to
deploy zabbix-server
not only
Bartosz,
It is obviously possible to install zabbix on the master nodes and put it
under pacemaker control. But it seems very strange for me to monitor
something with software located on the nodes that you are monitoring.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Bartosz Kupidura
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
>
Rob Basham
Cloud Systems Software Architecture
971-344-1999
Bartosz Kupidura wrote on 11/25/2014 05:21:59 AM:
> From: Bartosz Kupidura
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: 11/25/2014 05:26 AM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [FUEL] Zabbix in HA mode
>
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
