Bernie's need brings up a matter I wrote on before, fail-over service. We have two copies of IM running a separate network segments of our full network. Each has a full map of the network and each can and does monitor the other server and can page us when the opposite IM server fails.
However, to reduce multiple notifications we have split up the paging and email duties of each of the IM servers to cover that network segment to which it is closest. What would be really nice is to have a rule/system set up without apple scripts (remember we are supposedly in an OS dependant free zone when talking about IM,) to have either of the IM servers pick up all notification duties for the network when one fails. To take this a bit further, if we were to deploy three IM servers, the fail-over technology might be setup so that one of the surviving IM Servers takes over only those notifications that the failed server was covering. We were thinking that by having a Master/Slave server environment this might be possible... in the "New Map" option, have a sub-option "master or slave". For example on the first IM server, using the master option, create a map. On a second IM server from the New Map slave option enter the ip address or name of the master IM server and the name of the map. The map and all its related preferences are then transferred and represented as a "ghost" map. It neither sets off alarms, nor other notifications, nor can it be edited from the slave so long as the master can be seen from the slave. On the second IM server open a new map as master and we reverse the process using the first server as slave. This would also permit a three way or n-way round robin of responsibilities. Should the slave assume fail-over responsibilities an additional notification would be sent stating the failure and the assumption of roles. For mission critical - always up - services, this would be must have feature. The technology for transferring the map inherently exists via the IM-R technology. A license fee for the number of ghosts maps an IM server will support could be added to IM. For instance Customer X pays for Y-device licenses for IM server #1 and Z-device licenses for IM Server #2, he also purchases a single ghost license for each server. This gives each IM server the ability to support only one fail-over session. If a server is to host more than one fail-over session more ghost licenses are needed. As the total number of devices monitored on the network is a constant, no additional device licenses are needed. For networks, such as possibly Bernie's, where there wasn't a real need for a second IM server other than for fail-over, the second IM server might have no device licenses and only a ghost license. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bennie Warren Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 4:26 PM To: InterMapper Discussion Subject: Service Exchanges Has anyone thought about service exchanges? Like I monitor your intermapper machine and you monitor mine. We are trying to do away with our pagers and use our cell phones. Most cell phone companies work with email pages like Verizon. Only problem is if you have your router or your internet access dead you of course won't get any pages. Where if you traded monitoring services then if your connection was lost you would be paged by somebody else's network. Thanks Bennie -- ************************************** Bennie Warren LemooreNet 320 West D Street Lemoore, CA 93245 Phone: 559.924.5909 Fax 559.924.9578 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lemoorenet.com ************************************** ____________________________________________________________________ List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________________ List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
