[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: AssertException in process_common.c [resurrecting old thread]

From: Martin Pala
Subject: Re: AssertException in process_common.c [resurrecting old thread]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:15:30 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1

Yes, this is good point :) I will add this topic to FAQ.


Allen Shaw wrote:
Okay, this is very helpful information. In my case it's not the end of the world and monit is still *very* useful for me (mainly, I can count sheep instead of work hours).

BTW, I don't think this information is in the online docs or man page, but it might be useful for future prospective users. Could I be of any use updating the documentation?


Martin Pala wrote:

Allen Shaw wrote:

Yes, I suppose you're right, but I think that level of configuration is beyond me and lies with the VDS provider, right?


I don't expect I could easily persuade them to change their setup. In this case, although monit's debug output does reveal the errors, it doesn't seem to adversely affect monit's performance. Do I have anything to worry about here, and then, would you guess there's something I can do *without* having the hosting service modify their VDS setup?

Monit shows also incorrect system memory usage and zero for cpu and load average:

'system' load average [0.00][0.00][0.00]
'system' memory usage 819140.0% [-314220 kB]
'system' cpu usage 0.0%us 0.0%sy 0.0%wa

This is most probably caused by VDS setup too (however we can fix the invalid value in memory usage - it should be zero).

Hidden processes monitoring, system-wide and per-process cpu load, memory and cpu usage statistics will not work in VDS jail (monit can't acess these informations, because system administrator denied it), other monit functions should work.


To unsubscribe:

reply via email to

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