[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Proposal: change connection tests statement

From: Christian Hopp
Subject: Re: Proposal: change connection tests statement
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:13:57 +0100 (CET)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> 1)
> In the current monit version it is possible to write a connection test
> in a process entry as shown below:
>  check process xinetd with pidfile /var/run/
>        start program = "...."
>        stop program = "..."
>        alert address@hidden
> -->    if failed port 631 then alert
> I suggest that this is removed in the next release and that a connection
> test is only allowed in a check-host entry. As the example below
> illustrate the depend statement can be used to express the same thing.
> There are 3 reasons I want to remove connection tests from a process
> entry, a) Logically it does not belong in the process entry b) it's
> easier in the documentation to explain connection test if it's in one
> place c) the code will be better.

Well, it still belongs to the process.  It would bloat up the config file
and it makes it hard to read then.  You would need to have separate
host services for each of your service.  Otherwise you can not depend on
the port test.  Vote: -1

> Unless I get a veto vote on this I'm going to change the code when I get
> time. Yes, it will break backward compatibility but it will also make
> the control file language cleaner. We could deprecate connection tests
> in a check process entry and allow it in a few new versions of monit or
> invalidate now and print an error? Personally I would like to invalidate
> it now with an explanatory error message.


> 2)
> In addition I also propose that we change the connection statement and
> remove host name from it. Since we have a check-host statement it is
> redundant and it sort of breaks the logic of a check host entry in that
> you can specify another host than the one checked. I.e. this is legal
>  check host redhat with address
>     if failed host port 80 ...
>     if failed port 80 ....
> In other words I suggest that it's not possible to specify the host in
> the if-test and that the above is illegal. This means that if you want
> to test another host you must create a new check host entry.
> Viewpoints anyone?

okay... Vote: +1



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

reply via email to

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