[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: test

From: Richard Houston
Subject: Re: test
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:52:17 -0500 (CDT)
User-agent: SquirrelMail/2.0

-- zz


Richard Houston
R.L.H. Consulting

Jan-Henrik Haukeland said:
> Martin Pala <address@hidden> writes:
>> Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
>> *
>>>What do others think? Is it interesting to add an external standalone
>>>connection test to monit?
>> I agree, it is very interesting.
> Let's add it then :-) Because by doing this simple thing (for us) it
> opens up a whole new ballpark for monit.
> Before we start we must agree on the syntax for the new statement
> though. Your proposal:
>   check host up2date-http with address
>     if failed host port 80 protocol http then {...}
>     if failed host port 443 type tcpssl protocol http
>       and request "/my/index.html" then {..}
>     alert address@hidden
> Is good because it lets us keep the current if-connection-test as it
> is and can use several connection tests in an entry. But the syntax is
> a bit redundant, since the hostname/address is given twice. It is easy
> to write a new rule in the parser for a remote connection test, so we
> do not *need* to keep the connection test as it is for a remote test.
> 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 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.
> Finally, here is a suggestion using a rewrite of your proposal. Here
> the check-block simply contains a descriptive name for the connection
> test. [In the parser we will also require that host is stated for a
> remote connection test (in the current grammar host is not required
> and if not stated is assumed to be localhost).]
>   check connection redhat <- redhat is just a descriptive name for the
> test
>     if failed host port 80 protocol http and request
>       "/my/index.html" then alert
>     if failed host port 443 type tcpssl protocol http
>       and request "/my/index.html" then alert
>     alert address@hidden
> Other suggestions are welcome!
> --
> Jan-Henrik Haukeland
> --
> To unsubscribe:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]