Hi, I thought about that, but It's not possible :(
I have x servers, but every server have a different configuration. For example Server 1 : program 1,10,11,12,13,14,15... Server 2 : program 1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13,14,15... .... And too, I need the output of every check program for generate an automatically alarm with monit. Thanks Ferran 2016-01-14 10:57 GMT+01:00 Tino Hendricks <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > sounds to me like essentially you don’t want synchronous execution. So why > not „concat" all XX.sh into a single 1_to_25.sh and let it handle it > sequentially? > > Tino > > Am 14.01.2016 um 10:06 schrieb Ferran Mengibar Pastor < > [email protected]>: > > > > Hello, > > I have a problem with the load of my servers and the number of "check > programs" of my monit configuration (5.12.1 v) > > > > In the documentation, we can see: > > Program checks are asynchronous. Meaning that Monit will not wait for > the program to exit, but instead, Monit will start the program in the > background and immediately continue checking the next service entry in > monitrc. > > > > My config file (example): > > set daemon 120 > > > > check program 1 with path 1.sh > > if status = 1 then alert > > check program 2 with path 2.sh > > if status = 1 then alert > > ...... > > check program 24 with path 24.sh > > if status = 1 then alert > > check program 25 with path 25.sh > > if status = 1 then alert > > > > Every program takes between 5 and 10 seconds. > > > > The problem is that in less than 1 second I have the machine with all > the programs in state of running .... but with a load average of 30. > > > > Could it be possible to execute all these programs, but limit only 5/10 > running at time? > > > > I mean (I write an example with my config file and with 5 of limit). > > Start : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 > > Run : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 > > End : 1 ---> start only the 6 > > Run : 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 > > End : 2 and 3 ---> start 7 and 8 > > ... > > Run : 21,22,23,24,25 (25 is the last one) > > End : 21 > > Run : 22, 23, 24,25 > > End : 22, 23, 24 > > Run : 25 > > End : 25 > > > > Wait 120 seconds for the next iteration > > > > It's possible? Or maybe we have a variable like asynchronousLimit? > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Ferran Mengibar Pastor > > Delivery Service > > > > > > Tél. : +34 972 982 967 > > > > www.augure.com > > > > Blog: Reputation in action > > Skype: dragglori > > Access map: Augure Girona > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe: > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-general > > > -- > To unsubscribe: > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-general -- *Ferran Mengibar Pastor* Delivery Service Tél. : +34 972 982 967 *www.augure.com <http://www.augure.com/>* *Blog:* Reputation in action <http://blog.augure.es/> *Skype:* dragglori *Access map:* Augure Girona <https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Eiximenis+12,+17001+Girona,+Espanya&hl=ca&sll=50.956548,6.799948&sspn=30.199963,86.044922&hnear=Carrer+Eiximenis,+12,+17001+Girona,+Espanya&t=m&z=16>
-- To unsubscribe: https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-general
