|
|
| few monitored devices, many monitored locations | | 3 | |
many monitored devices, few monitored locations | | 10 | |
few monitored devices, few monitored locations | | 0 | |
many monitored devices, many monitored locations | | 4 | |
none of the above | | 1 |
|
| | | |
| |  Posted 7/31/2007 1:53:50 PM | |
| Forum Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/9/2007 9:58:33 AM
Posts: 41, Visits: 5 |
| | (this is a test poll) We are interested in measuring the range of deployments of the "distributed" solution. For this few is 5-10 and many is 100ish.
ajf
Ipswitch, Inc. |
| |
| | | Posted 8/6/2007 6:55:16 AM | |
| 
Time Traveler
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:46:15 PM
Posts: 317, Visits: 3,649 |
| | |
| | | Posted 8/6/2007 9:06:41 AM | |
| Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/9/2007 9:58:33 AM
Posts: 41, Visits: 5 |
| LLS71 (8/6/2007)
To be a little more specific: few/many devices describes ALL devices or the devices per location? Regards, L. Schieder Devices per location
ajf
Ipswitch, Inc. |
| |
| | | Posted 8/21/2007 12:01:19 PM | |
| Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 6:00:36 PM
Posts: 13, Visits: 15 |
| | We are using this to get around the performance limitations of a single server. We are going to break up the "remote sites" as follows- 1. Cisco/Network Infrastructure 2. Windows Servers Ping and Trending 3. Windows Server Service monitoring 4. Unix and Misc. Devices. We have about 200 servers with 20 monitoried services on average, 100 Unix Servers, and 300 or so Cisco devices. Our total monitor count is used to be over 11K but there were too many false positives. Hope this works for us! |
| |
| | | Posted 8/31/2007 10:30:36 AM | |
| Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/5/2007 4:45:48 PM
Posts: 3, Visits: 58 |
|
We have ~400 devices and ~7000 active monitors, and we're interested in distributing the workload from the polling engine, which 'officially' only supports 3,000 monitored elements. |
| |
|
|