Re: Monit 4 enhancement requests

[Jan-Henrik Haukeland]

Jan-Henrik Haukeland <address@hidden> writes:

>  IF NUMBER RESTART NUMBER CYCLE(S) THEN {ALERT|RESTART|STOP|EXEC|UNMONITOR}
>
> This will make it the same type of if-test as the other tests. And it
> does make sense to support such action and not only unmonitor for
> timeout. For instance upon a timeout the user may want to send a snmp
> trap (it's called that, isn't it?) instead of an alert. This could be
> done via the exec statement and a call an external program to send
> this trap.

Ehh, of course, since this statement is meant to catch services that
has problems running it must still unmonitor them. In other words, it
must do the action and in the background also unmonitor the service.
Since any action also generates an email, and restart was the problem
in the first place and the reason this statement was called, then the
onlu actions that make sense to perform in this statement is actually
only UNMONITOR and EXEC. If we let the keyword TIMEOUT stands for
alert+unmonitor (as it is today already) Then the statement is reduced
to this:

IF NUMBER RESTART NUMBER CYCLE(S) THEN {TIMEOUT | TIMEOUT AND EXEC}

Where TIMEOUT            = unmonitor+alert 
      TIMEOUT AND EXEC   = unmonitor+alert+exec


-- 
Jan-Henrik Haukeland