Neither did I 'til I was woken up 3 times in one night! -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 31 July 2002 08:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] dependencies
Not suren I'm not seeing this as a real problem. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Tree Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:29 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [SA-list] dependencies So, will this be sorted in v4? -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 July 2002 16:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] dependencies normal. the status change will send a mail when the entry's status changes (with some exceptions) entry_2 was down, then became unavailable (due to the dependency) and then became down again. And going from unavailable to down does generate a mail. (we only keep the 2 last statusses, in your "case" we should keep 3 to be able to say that before the unavailable it was down) Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Tree Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:44 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [SA-list] dependencies entry_2 depends on entry_1 entry_2 down -->mail entry_1 down (no mail because it's set to send on 3rd time down) entry_1 back up entry_2 STILL down --> mail (again) -----Original Message----- From: Dirk Bulinckx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 July 2002 16:18 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] dependencies Not sure to understand the question correctly. entry_2 depends on entry_1 being up. entry_1 down -> mail entry_2 not checked entry_1 up -> mail again entry_2 is checked and IF DOWN then you'll get a mail, if it's UP you shouldn't get the mail. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Tree Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:26 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [SA-list] dependencies Dirk, Quick question .. I have a number of checks that are dependent on another check. Occasionally, one of the dependent checks fails, and I get a message [which is good :)], but if the host check fails, I get another message from the dependent check when the host check comes back. Is this by design, or an oversight, or is it me mis-interpreting the results. I know I get multiple 'down' messages for certain checks, at apparently random intervals. I have since temporarily remove the dependency and it seems to work ok, but I would like to replace it. I was supposed to be a quick question, but I seem to have started to ramble.... nt4.0sp6a SA3.2.1087 To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive
