How can you say that. Is the DB being used been ported already to O/S's which do not yet exist?
Bruce White Senior Enterprise Systems Engineer | Phone: 1-630-671-5169 | Fax: 630-893-1648 | bewhite at fellowes.com | http://www.fellowes.com/ Disclaimer: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Fellowes, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: xymon-bounces at xymon.com [mailto:xymon-bounces at xymon.com] On Behalf Of Ulric Eriksson Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:33 PM To: xymon at xymon.com Subject: Re: [Xymon] Hand editing config files
White, Bruce skrev 2012-06-21 22:47:
1)I haven’t seen one person mention that adding a DB back end might reduce the flexibility to port Xymon to the next O/S or platform.
Probably because it wouldn't.
Ulric
Xymon mailing list Xymon at xymon.com http://lists.xymon.com/mailman/listinfo/xymon
White, Bruce skrev 2012-07-13 17:41:
How can you say that. Is the DB being used been ported already to O/S's which do not yet exist?
I can say that because the host(s) running Xymon can send and receive text over tcp, and any computer that can do that can also communicate with a database either directly or (preferrably) through an abstraction library such as this one I wrote many years ago:
http://freecode.com/projects/libsdb
(There are others, I only picked that one because I know it allows any aplication to get database connectivity with very little effort.)
There is no benefit to running the database on the same host as Xymon, for several obvious reasons.
Ulric
On Fri, July 13, 2012 16:27, Ulric Eriksson wrote:
There is no benefit to running the database on the same host as Xymon, for several obvious reasons.
I'm apparently too dense for the reasons to be obvious. It seems to me that the obvious benefit of having it on the same host is that he still has access to his configuration data in the event of a network issue on his path to what would otherwise be his database service.
Xymon User in Richmond skrev 2012-07-14 00:11:
On Fri, July 13, 2012 16:27, Ulric Eriksson wrote:
There is no benefit to running the database on the same host as Xymon, for several obvious reasons.
I'm apparently too dense for the reasons to be obvious. It seems to me that the obvious benefit of having it on the same host is that he still has access to his configuration data in the event of a network issue on his path to what would otherwise be his database service.
Here are a bunch of reasons that are obvious to me, at least:
Load distribution: do not burden a loaded xymon server with the additional burden of a database.
Compatibility: there are many, many database vendors and nobody wants xymon to be dependent on whatever platforms they choose to support.
Management: at least in larger organisations, there is usually a dba group responsible for running databases, a different skillset from running xymon.
Availability: many databases have clustering, replication and other features that maximize availability and minimize downtime.
Consistency: several xymon hosts can access the same data, which does away with rsync scripts and other ugly hacks to keep configuration in sync.
I suggested in an earlier message that the configuration could be fetched from the database by the xymon hosts and cached locally in a format that can be used immediately by xymon, for example the exact same format that is used today. If the database becomes unavailable for any reason, all hosts would still have the last known configuration.
Ulric
participants (3)
-
bewhite＠fellowes.com
-
hobbit＠epperson.homelinux.net
-
ulric＠siag.nu