Forum Discussion
pool member monitor versus pool monitor
(in configuring a pool using CLI/tmsh) which monitor is used to determine state of a pool if member-specified monitor is different to pool-specified monitor? Are both used or member's monitor is used?
Stretching this, what if none of the member-specified monitors are the same, what should pool-specified monitor be?
R's, Alex
- Joshua_Johnson1Nimbostratus
Not sure if this behavior has changed now. When I apply node-specific monitor and NOT pool monitor, my pool remains blue. Shouldn't pool be green if each member in node-view shows each member green?
No. Node specific monitors can only mark a pool member down. The posts above are regarding pool member monitors, which are a different object. Using your code, if you had this:
ltm pool prd-pl-vsp_mdm { members { prd-pl-vsp1:any { address 172.26.225.100 priority-group 1 session monitor-enabled monitor Server-Monitor-8443 state up } prd-pl-vsp2:any { address 172.26.225.101 session monitor-enabled monitor Server-Monitor-8443 state up } } min-active-members 1 monitor none }
This would work correctly and should bring up the pool.
- rais_149266Nimbostratus
Not sure if this behavior has changed now. When I apply node-specific monitor and NOT pool monitor, my pool remains blue. Shouldn't pool be green if each member in node-view shows each member green?
Does it mean there is one monitoring going on for each node from node-monitor perspective and another monitoring going on from pool's perspective?
Here are my definitions:
ltm pool prd-pl-vsp_mdm { members { prd-pl-vsp1:any { address 172.26.225.100 priority-group 1 session monitor-enabled state up } prd-pl-vsp2:any { address 172.26.225.101 session monitor-enabled state up } } min-active-members 1 monitor Server-Monitor-8443 } ltm node prd-pl-vsp1 { address 172.26.225.100 monitor Server-Monitor-8443 session monitor-enabled state up } ltm node prd-pl-vsp2 { address 172.26.225.101 monitor Server-Monitor-8443 session monitor-enabled state up }
Thanks.
- epaalxCirrus
> Does it mean there is one monitoring going on for each node from node-monitor perspective and another monitoring going on from pool's perspective?
Yes.
Although counter-intuitive, even if a node's monitor detects node as unavailable, LTM will continue to monitor the member using monitor defined in the pool - see K7118.
- hooleylistCirrostratusYes, that looks right.
- epaalxCirrusSo, basically pool attribute "monitor all" specifies monitors used when member attribute "monitor" is set to value "default", correct?
pool pool1 { monitor none members { 1.1.1.1:80 {monitor1} 1.1.1.2:80 {monitor2} } } pool pool2 { monitor monitor3 members { 1.1.1.1:80 {monitor1} 1.1.1.2:80 {monitor2} } } pool pool3 { monitor monitor2 members { 1.1.1.1:80 {monitor1} 1.1.1.2:80 {} } }
- hooleylistCirrostratusYou can have a monitor assigned to the pool. You can also have monitors assigned directly to a member. If a pool member has a member-specific monitor it will not use any pool monitors.
pool my_pool { members { 1.1.1.1:80 { monitor http_1.1_monitor session monitor-enabled } 1.1.1.2:80 { session monitor-enabled } } monitor http }
pool my_pool { monitor all min 2 of http tcp http_1.1_monitor members { 1.1.1.1:80 { monitor min 1 of http_1.1_monitor gateway_icmp } 1.1.1.2:80 {} 1.1.1.3:80 {} } }
- epaalxCirrusit is monitor at pool member level.
- nitassEmployeewhich monitor is used to determine state of a pool if member-specified monitor is different to pool-specified monitor? it is monitor at pool member level.
Recent Discussions
Related Content
* Getting Started on DevCentral
* Community Guidelines
* Community Terms of Use / EULA
* Community Ranking Explained
* Community Resources
* Contact the DevCentral Team
* Update MFA on account.f5.com