Re: {bb} bbgen and conn

[Henrik Storner <henrik-bb@hswn.dk>]

In <CCE0D6BC217E0042B396FD6FCCF3D83FF26778@mail-ncemc-a.raleigh.ncemcs.com> "Ingersoll, Rick" <rick.ingersoll@ncemcs.com> writes:

>One problem I see with doing it this way is you now have three hosts for
>one.  I think that makes the display look a little out of hand.  It would be
>great to just have a conn and a conn2 column and there you go.  I currently
>use the bb-conn2 script to do this, but I don't get the larrd graph or the
>advantage of trace and such using bbgen.

OK, let me try to sum up. As I see it, a host with multiple IP's
can be ping-tested in a number of ways:

1) Setup a unique hostname for each IP. That's the simple solution,
   which everyone does right now because that is what works. 
   Disadvantage: You cannot see that the IP's all belong to the
   same host. If the host goes down, you get multiple alerts.

2) Same as 1), but with bbcombotest to create a single BB status
   for the combined result of all of the ping-tests.
   Disadvantage: As Jeff wrote - same as 1), except that you
   can avoid the multiple-alerts scenario.

3) Allow for a single host to have multiple IP's, just as it may
   have multiple http-tests. Ping all of the IP's, then combine
   them into a single "conn" status-message, similarly to how 
   multiple http tests are combined into one "http" status, with
   some way of defining if all of the IP's must respond, or just
   one.
   Advantages: The IP's are matched with a single host.
   Disadvantages: You will only get one status message. LARRD
   will need some work to handle a multi-IP "conn" status.
   Putting a traceroute into the message could become rather
   messy in formatting and coding.
   Getting router-dependency and reverse tests right will be
   really difficult.

4) Allow for a host to have multiple IP's, but report each of them
   in separate columns.
   Advantages: Same as 3)
   Disadvantages: You may get multiple alerts if the host goes
   down. LARRD needs work, although probably not as much as 3).
   Router-dependency etc. will be tricky.


1) and 2) are already possible. I've tried implementing some of
3) - it will just ping the IP's, not do traceroute or router
dependencies - in todays snapshot of bbgen 3.0 (available at
http://www.hswn.dk/bbgen/alpha/). 4) I am not terribly fond of.

Opinions ?


Henrik
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To unsubscribe from this list, or to subscribe to the bb-digest list
send e-mail to mailto:majordomo@bb4.com with unsubscribe bb -and/or-
subscribe bb-digest in the BODY of the message.