[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: test
From: |
Martin Pala |
Subject: |
Re: test |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:14:41 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2 |
Martin Pala wrote:
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 ...
Ugly keying mistakes - i'll better go to bed :)
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)
Note: in the example bellow pop3 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
Note: this will stop local apache in the case that remote mysql went offline
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
Note: In the case that some of backend servers is down, it will stop the
frontend too.
In real world such behavior (to stop it) is undesirable - this is just
example to show possible remote and local services dependencies.
Martin
- test, Igor Homyakov, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Martin Pala, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Martin Pala, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Martin Pala, 2003/08/29
- Re: test,
Martin Pala <=
- Re: test, Jan-Henrik Haukeland, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Martin Pala, 2003/08/30
- Re: test, Richard Houston, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Richard Houston, 2003/08/29
- Re: test, Martin Pala, 2003/08/29