Forum Discussion
NimbostratusShould health monitor be the port on the node?
Is it the common practice to have the health monitor as the actual service (protocol) that is listening on the node its self?
So, for example if I have a server listening on port 443, then if I put the health monitor on 443 and the server isn't responding then I know for sure it has a problem with 443 on the server, correct?
Also, if I monitor the pool does that include all nodes in the pool? Or should I monitor the nodes individually?
I'm trying to create a custom monitor for UDP 3389 for a member in a pool. I want to monitor that port 3389 is always up and responding but I don't know what to put in the Send String or Receive String. The Send String has "default send string" already typed in the box.
Is it also possible to get notified when a service cant be reached? Thanks.
2 Replies
ArieAltostratus
You are right; monitors should verify the health of the service you're delivering. Generally, it is best to configure monitors to verify representative requests. For instance, for HTTP responses you will want to look for an actual "200 OK" response rather than simply verifying that a connection can be made on port 80. However, if a "200 OK" doesn't necessarily mean that the app is OK you'll need to be more specific (and look for a string, for instance).
Monitors can be assigned to nodes, or to pool members. They don't monitor pools, just pool members.
There are several options to be notified when a service is unavailable. For instance, you could use an SMNP-trap, or use an iRule to generate a message. You could also use an external monitoring/notification system (e.g. Nagios, or a cloud-based monitoring service).
tolinrome_13817Ok, thanks. I tried to monitor udp 3389, do I need a string for that, how do I accomplish it?
