# Server resources guidelines or benchmarks **URL:** \ **Category:** Icinga 2\ **Created:** [April 2, 2021, 9:14pm UTC](https://community.icinga.com/t/server-resources-guidelines-or-benchmarks/7057 "2021-04-02T21:14:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![log1c](https://community.icinga.com/user_avatar/community.icinga.com/log1c/32/2071_2.png) [@log1c](https://community.icinga.com/u/log1c)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2021, 7:07am UTC](https://community.icinga.com/t/server-resources-guidelines-or-benchmarks/7057/2 "2021-04-06T07:07:40Z")
I myself have nearly no experience with such large setups, but maybe the following thread can give you some insights: > [@Icinga2 at large scale](https://community.icinga.com/t/icinga2-at-large-scale/2178/20): > > Hello @powelleb, thanks for the feedback, the only problem with Icingaweb in this configuration is that: icingaweb2/monitoring/health/info will show you only the information about first satellite zone connected to the database, icingaweb unfortunately reads only first id from table in the database and show statistic based on that. But the good news here that all hosts are visible and doesn’t have any conflicts inside database Also i’ve tested icinga-agent move from one satellite zone to anothe… This focuses mostly on the IDO DB performance. Some generic thoughts: The resource requirements depend heavily on the checks used. Something like check\_by\_ssh, check\_tcp or other small checks have a small footprint, other checks, e.g. check\_nwc\_health or similar have heavy footprints eating up memory, especially if they have a high execution time. I guess the database and the webinterface is/will be on a separate server? This would take some load the monitoring servers. The load you describe for your satellites are pretty low for 32 cpu cores, so you don’t seem to have a problem here. --- _[View the full topic](https://community.icinga.com/t/server-resources-guidelines-or-benchmarks/7057)._