Chris_Phillips
Oct 03, 2006Nimbostratus
voyeuristic pool monitoring
Hi all,
Unless i'm very much mistaken there is no way at all within the LTM's to make them snat their monitor traffic. As such whilst we can happily use a snatpool or such on a virtual server and have it work great, if our monitor traffic needs to also come from that location, e.g. due to firewall or routing rules, then without snatting that traffic we are up a certain creek without a certain implement.
As such i'm trying to find alternative (and hopefully elegant) ways to monitor these remote sites. i'm only on 9.1.1 at the moment, but looking at the additional iRule commands in 9.2 i'm wondering how feasible it is to mark a pool up or down based on the responses we are getting back from the remote site. we have a critical need to monitor the pools, get can't reach them effectively outside of the application trafic itself. Initially i am looking at replicating TCP or basic HTTP monitoring of a pool (which are all HTTP servers as far as this is concerned.) for now i'm happy to assume a node is up if i get a response packet at all, but may want to go further.
is this the sort of thing that anyone is already doing with LB::down and other commands? does anyone have any examples to look at? do i really need 9.2+ to achieve this? i just really want to achieve a syslog entry / SNMP trap / red light from whatever voyeuristic tests i can do. as there is no alternative service available and each pool only has a single member i may as well keep throwing traffic at the "down" node just in case i'm wrong.
the lack of monitor snats or direct monitors that function like this appear to be a fairly sizeable drawback in LTM land... are there any plans for inclusion of these features or do F5 not belive they are justified requests?
Thanks as always
Chris