Need a little bit of your toughts about our actual setup…
Right now we have
25x remote endpoint (connected to master, we used to called them poller, as it’s a physical box at each remote location)
300x hosts (agent) that are connected at 95% to one of the 25 remote endpoint and some of them direcly to the master
Should we move our setup to have 2 satellite between the master and the 25 remote endpoint to offload the workload on the master ?
The master itself is running at 15% of the processor all the time… and the same “master” is also running the icingaweb2
My concern is more about optimal setup… right now all our 25 remote endpoint are connected to the master directly, if we setup 2 satellites at 2 different location of the master, it will add some layer of HA ?
The master itself is running at 15% of the processor all the time… and
the same “master” is also running the icingaweb2
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
My concern is more about optimal setup… right now all our 25 remote
endpoint are connected to the master directly, if we setup 2 satellites at
2 different location of the master, it will add some layer of HA ?
I wouldn’t quite call that HA, but you might regard it as an improvement:
your current Master is clearly a Single Point Of Failure
implementing a Satellite for 12 endpoints and another one for 13 of them
means you can still see half your network if one of the Satellites dies
it also means the Satellites will collect data from the endpoints even if
they (either, or both) cannot see the Master
if the Master goes down, the Satellites will continue doing their job; you
just can’t reconfigure stuff until the Master comes back
you can run Icingaweb2 on the Satellites as well if you wish; it will only
show the endpoints connected to that Satellite
You should add a 2nd master server as @Pooh said if your worried about high availability. Once you add the 2nd master your checks and notification will get load balanced between both masters so that will help reduce the load on your current master.
I’m not sure what a ‘remote endpoint’ is. I did not see that term used anywhere in the documentation. I cannot comment on a remote endpoint.
Glad you found you answer. Icinga is open source so you can set it up many way so I never heard of a zone inside a zone.
Regarding your setup I would change my local ‘poller’ to a Icinga satellite if possible. All the local agents that cannot communicate with the master will communicate with the local Icinga satellite. Setup the Icinga satellite to communicate with the master. You still have the problem with a single point of failure at your master and each site. You can add a second master and a second satellite at each site to solve the SPOF. This is described here in the documentation.