Configuring multiple clients to report to a master using the config file

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

I can't find a mailing list so I thought I'd file a bug! :)

I'm trying to configure MyCheckpoint to talk to a master MySQL server from 
about 100 nodes across various datacentres.

The links are already in place (we're using them for replication) however I 
can't get MyCheckpoint to use a "read_only" user to connect to the clients and 
send the reports using a different user to the master.

Is this possible?

I'm hoping that there might be a way of adding something such as the following 
to the config file:

[server]
host=<master_host_name>
port=<master_host_port>
database=<master_host_database>
user=<user_with_write_privs_on_master>
pass=<password_for_above_user>

I'm also interested in knowing if I can have all clients write to the same 
database on the master (I'm not keen on the idea of having to maintain 100 
databases and then writing the reports for each server!)

Thanks in advance,

Matt

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mattMacW...@gmail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 9:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

No mailing lists for this project... too young as yet.
Since you're not the first who asked, I'm marking this as a feature request:
adding a monitored-user & monitored-password command line options + config file 
variables.

There is no way to have all clients write to the same database on the master. 
That is, no planned support for this and no infrastructure for this. I 
understand your concern of having 100 different schema. Sorry (ashamed).

Original comment by shlomi.n...@gmail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 9:41

• Added labels: Type-Enhancement, Usability

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for the quick response.

No need to be ashamed, not many people have the kind of setup we do... :)

I'll have a look at the code and see if I (or one of my colleagues) can edit it 
to do what we want it to.  I'll let you know if we succeed and I'd be hapy to 
provide patches etc should you want them! :)

Kind regards,

Matt

Original comment by mattMacW...@gmail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

You're welcome to do that. Some do. But I have intention to fix this anyhow. 
See who gets there first?

Original comment by shlomi.n...@gmail.com on 19 Aug 2010 at 11:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So, the feature request was in two parts:
1. Asking for remote-host connection parameters, in addition to monitored=host 
parameters.
2. Asking whether it were possible to accommodate all monitored data within one 
schema.

#1 has been fixed a while ago. But get the latest (revision 208) anyway.
#2 will not be fixed.

I'll close this bug as Fixed.

Original comment by shlomi.n...@gmail.com on 13 Nov 2010 at 4:33

• Changed state: Fixed