On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 14:12 -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Tom Haddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 13:02 -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote:
> > > I wouldn't rely on balancer_manager for a such monitoring because I've
> > > seen situations when it reported "Ok" status
On 6/14/07, Tom Haddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 13:02 -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote:
> I wouldn't rely on balancer_manager for a such monitoring because I've
> seen situations when it reported "Ok" status for workers that were
> down.
Is that a known bug?
I haven't seen
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 13:02 -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote:
> I wouldn't rely on balancer_manager for a such monitoring because I've
> seen situations when it reported "Ok" status for workers that were
> down.
Is that a known bug?
>
> As alternative method you can use sniffing Apache error_log fi
I wouldn't rely on balancer_manager for a such monitoring because I've
seen situations when it reported "Ok" status for workers that were
down.
As alternative method you can use sniffing Apache error_log file for
the messages about disabled workers. You can OSSEC for that for
example.
On 6/14/07
Hi Folks,
We've recently set up mod_proxy_balancer as a replacement for Pound, and
I'm trying to work out the best way to monitor the load balancer to
determine which servers are "in the loop" and which servers are "out of
the loop". I'd ideally like to tie this in to Nagios so that I can get
aler
