I don't think we want anything that might resemble or be a valid DNS
record (or IP address), do we? Some other separator or format might be
in order IMO.
e.g.
hostgroup servers company2.servers.web 192.33.22.22
Is 'company2.servers.web' a group or a hostname? We could assume if it
doesn't match a group it must be a dns name, but perhaps it's defined
later, or it was misspelled - if a DNS entry also existed, you might be
testing entirely the wrong thing and have no indicator.
---
As far as how to implement it - I assumed the plan would likely be left
up to pre-processing to expand all the groups out, thus not requiring
any changes in the heart of mon. That begs the question, however, of
whether there's need for any kind of dynamic in these groups, that would
preclude an m4/macro styled expansion.
cheers,
- Martin Norland, Sys Admin / Database / Web Developer, International
Outreach x3257
The opinion(s) contained within this email do not necessarily represent
those of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Frank Isemann
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 11:53 AM
To: mon@linux.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Main Groups?
hi david :)
new group structure idea
groups seperated by a "."
like:
hostgroup company1.routers 192.22.128.0 192.22.128.1
hostgroup company2.servers.web 192.33.22.22 192.33.44.44
or if the user want specify the services for a single host:
hostgroup company3.workstations.burnpc1 122.22.2.22
the best:
no "real" modify at the mon code ...
or is this idea anywhere broken?
greetz frank
_______________________________________________
mon mailing list
mon@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
