Re: test

[Martin Pala]

Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> 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?
>
>  
Ahh, i'm sorry - in my last mail i replied to your previous mail and 
hove not seen thos message ...

However if we'll use this one:

 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

we'll have problems in the case that you will need to split services 
running on remote host to more then one monitoring service instance. You 
can need it, because you can for example make local  apache depend on 
remote mysql and and different service (for example smtp proxy) on 
remote messaging servers running on the same remote host. Apache and 
pop3 multiplexor are not dependend on each other, nor on each others 
prerequisite service => as i mentioned in my last mail, the first 
proposal is probably better:

 check process apache with pidfile /var/run/httpd.pid
   start program = "/etc/init.d/apache start"    
   stop program = "/etc/init.d/apache stop"
   if failed port 80 protocol http then restart
   alert address@hidden
   depends on mysql

 check host mysql on address 10.1.1.1
   if failed port 3306 then stop
   alert address@hidden

 check process mmp with pidfile /var/run/mmp.pid
   start program = "/etc/init.d/mmp start"    
   stop program = "/etc/init.d/mmp stop"
   if failed port 110 protocol pop then restart
   alert address@hidden
   depends on pop-backend1
   depends on pop-backend2

 check host pop-backend1 on address 10.1.1.1
   if failed port 110 then stop
   alert address@hidden

 check host pop-backend2 on address 10.1.1.2
   if failed port 110 then stop
   alert address@hidden


As you can see, host 10.1.1.1 provides pop3 as well as mysql, first 
syntax is more general and allows such setups.

Martin