On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Vuksan vli...@veus.hr wrote:
I think you guys are complicating much :-). Can't you simply have multiple
gmetads in different sites poll a single gmond. That way if one gmetad fails
data is still available and updated on the other gmetads. That is what
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote:
a) you are only concerned with redundancy and not looking for
scalability - when I say scalability, I refer to the idea of maybe 3 or
more gmetads running in parallel collecting data from huge numbers of
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:49, Spike Spiegel fsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Vuksan vli...@veus.hr wrote:
I think you guys are complicating much :-). Can't you simply have multiple
gmetads in different sites poll a single gmond. That way if one gmetad fails
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:02, Spike Spiegel fsm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote:
a) you are only concerned with redundancy and not looking for
scalability - when I say scalability, I refer to the idea of maybe 3 or
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 04:02:36PM +, Spike Spiegel wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon
care...@sajinet.com.pe wrote:
b) you can afford to have duplicate storage - if your storage
requirements are huge (retaining a lot of historic data or lot's of data
Changed subjects because this part of the discussion is important enough to
have its own thread
On Dec 20, 2009, at 8:55 AM, Jesse Becker wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:02, Spike Spiegel
fsm...@gmail.commailto:fsm...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think there's a middle ground here that'd be
