- Find Answers
- :
- Splunk Administration
- :
- Getting Data In
- :
- Re: High Availability for Heavy forwarder configur...
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark Topic
- Subscribe to Topic
- Mute Topic
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
High Availability for Heavy forwarder configuration?
Current setup of Splunk Instance is 10 UF---->2HF---->3IDX,
In HF for load balance we go with config of autoLB with frequency. has anyone can help for failover or HA mode at HF configuration?..how it will be work with BCP if one of the HF hardware or path fails?
UF------>}HF1
UF1------->} HF1
UF--------}HF2
UF1----->HF2
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
hello there,
@jplumsdaine22 comments are very valid, and i recommend to follow his lead.
straight out, there is no real HA configuration for HF.
with that being said, you can achieve some sort of continuance / semi HA configuration with your architecture by configuring the Universal Forwarders to auto load balance to both HF. now if one HF is down, the Universal Forwarders will send data to the HF that is still up.
outputs on UF has to have both HF on all UF, in contrary to your diagram in the question
hope it helps
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Is there a particular reason you're using the HFs at all? It is best practice to have NO intermediate tier between the UFs and Indexers.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
The HFs would be needed depending on the size of the environment, for example having 1000 servers all sending directly to the Indexer would not be a great idea as this would impact on performance, especially if the Indexer is also being used as a Search Head / Deployment Server / License Master and so on. In a smaller setup yes that would be best practice.
Having a HF installed on a system for example to split up sites so maybe a London site and a Birmingham site, in that situation you would have HFs installed and I could then see a requirement for HA, I guess in this situation you would configure the UF to send logs to both HFs for that one site and if one goes down the logs still are being routed via the other. if that site went down then you would have no logging.
The problem you then have is that you would potentially be doubling up on the logs being sent so some duplication would then take your license up, I don't know so much about that side of things but i'm sure there is a way of dropping duplicate logs.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
yes, its needed for to filter and routing few event logs before indexer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark Message
- Subscribe to Message
- Mute Message
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
You probably know already , but just in case you don't: All that filtering & routing can probably all be done without the HFs. I collect data from thousands of windows UFs without any heavy forwarders - filtering is all done at the index layer.
There's a good blog post explaining why HFs are not so great here:
https://www.splunk.com/blog/2016/12/12/universal-or-heavy-that-is-the-question/
Enterprise Security Content Update (ESCU) | New Releases
Why am I not seeing the finding in Splunk Enterprise Security Analyst Queue?
Index This | What are the 12 Days of Splunk-mas?
