Re: The EVERY statement

[Martin Pala]

Hmm - it seems realy strange, [1, (n+1), (2n+1), (3n+1)...]  seems much
better ;)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christian Hopp" <address@hidden>
To: "Monit Developer Mailinglist" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: The EVERY statement


> Hi!
>
> I find it strage if I use the "EVERY n" statement, my process get testet
> at the
>   nth, 2nth, 3nth,...
> cycle. That means it stays on inititlizing for n-1 cylces.
>
> Wouldnt it be better to test as...
>   1, (n+1), (2n+1), (3n+1)... ?
>
> Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Hopp                                email:
address@hidden
> Institut für Elektrische Informationstechnik             fon:
+49-5323-72-2113
> TU Clausthal, Leibnizstr. 28, 38678 Clausthal-Zellerf.   fax:
+49-5323-72-3197
>                              pgpkey:
https://www.iei.tu-clausthal.de/pgp-keys/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> monit-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-dev
>