Re: test

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Jan-Henrik Haukeland <address@hidden> writes:

> Here is another suggestion, modeled after your check-file test, where
> the host and port is given in the check line and the if-test simply
> refere to the host and port:
>
>  check host rhn.redhat.com port 80
>    if failed protocol http and request
>       "/my/index.html" and with timeout 15 seconds then {...}
>    alert address@hidden
>
> The drawback with this solution is that since the host and port is
> stated in the check-line there can only be *one* if-failed.. test. So
> if you want to test more than one port at the server you must write
> several check-host statements.

Well of course, if you take the port from the check line and put it
into a if-connection-test you can test several ports at the host in
one entry. I think maybe this proposal has the nicest syntax.

  check host rhn.redhat.com
    if failed port 80 protocol http and request
       "/my/index.html" and with timeout 15 seconds then {...}
    if failed port 443 type TCPSSL protocol http then {..}
    alert address@hidden

One slight drawback is that one will have to write several check-host
entries if you want to test named-virtual hosts at the same server.
But IMHO, the drawback is small compared with the nice syntax above :)

Shall we go for this one?

-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland