split the database

[jcrm]

I think it would make a great deal of sense to split the configuration database and the data database.

Fortunately such a step would not affect existing installations - you simply configure both to be in the same place.

essentially the two types of information are different in all all respects - usage pattern, value, volume. by allowing them to reside in two different databases, you increase the DBAs flexibility to handle them in appropriate ways - raid 1 + replication + backups for the config; raid 0 for the data.

cons:
Additonal complexity to handle two databases
Additional complexity handling the case where the configuration database is up, but the data one is down.

[Alexei]

I do not quite understand the reasoning behind the idea. Even if everything is stored in the same database, one may always choose where to store individual tables. For example, historical data can be stored on super fast disk array, and static configuration on cheap IDE.

[jcrm]

"replicate this database" is less likely to go out of date than "replicate hosts, items, users, ....."

I hope you don't do joins between the config and data tables

It is also much easier to set up. Especially in places where the people that monitor the network aren't the same as the people that run the database servers.


while I'm asking, allow the sucker agent to accept connections from from multiple hosts (comma separated list?)

that would save me from running two agents on each host, and doing outbound PAT on the servers.

[Alexei]

You mean agents? If so, you may already specify comma-delimited list of IP addresses in agent's configuration file for several ZABBIX servers.

[jcrm]

You mean agents? If so, you may already specify comma-delimited list of IP addresses in agent's configuration file for several ZABBIX servers.

Oh...

where did I get the idea it couldn't? Perhaps the documentation for 1.0b11 was unclear, and since then I've taken the install wording a little too literally

The file should contain IP address of ZABBIX server. Connections from other hosts will be denied.

[Nate Bell]

My copy of Zabbix (1.1alpha10) has these lines in the zabbix agent config file:

# List of comma delimited IP addresses of ZABBIX servers. No spaces allowed.
# First IP is used for sending active checks.

Can't remember if the older versions of Zabbix had these comments or not. I would be all for a wiki version of the manual, so the Zabbix users can contribute anything they find while using Zabbix.
Nate

[Alexei]

I would be all for a wiki version of the manual, so the Zabbix users can contribute anything they find while using Zabbix.
Nate

Wouldn't it better to have something simpler in MySQL manual style, when readers can add comments for each chapter of the manual?

[mconigliaro]

i think both are a good idea. a wiki would be great for posting howtos and "cookbook" type things that go beyond the scope of a basic installation.

[Nate Bell]

I do like the MySQL manual style. Quite helpful when I was first trying to install MySQL for Zabbix. Either way would be great! Any method where users can contribute to the manual seems like a win.
Nate

[bbittman]

yeah, let me make the manual better

i even noticed a few minor typos that i'd like to make note of to the manual, besides i'd like to be able to contribute my experience "inline" - and read others' as i peruse the manual

let the community enhance the manual! freedom to the people!
(and my 2c: i don't like the mysql manual comments style, i find it's more helpful to let people decide where their comments should go, rather than just lumping everything "those other people said" down at the bottom, that kind of shows a lack of respect for the intelligence of the community and it's then reflected in the quality of the posts)

btw, one typo in the manual:
http://www.zabbix.com/manual/v1.1/config_triggers.php - the "constants" table row referrering to bytes unit conversions (ie. K, G, M, etc) has in the "constant" column just "<number>" which is meaningless, it should read "K, G, M" right? also a view source on that section reveals that you did mean to do that but somehow the html got mangled, the html for that errorneous cell reads:

<td>&lt;number&gt;<k ,m,g=""></k></td>

...yeah, that's not you meant is it?