Thank you! Much better now.
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable I've got them all set as dependencies. I only check port 80 if the URL fails, w3svc if port 80 fails, ping if w3svc fails. You will only get an alert for the one check that fails. I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's our method. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Navarrete, Jose > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:07 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable > > > Is there a way to configure the "conditionals" (URL then port 80 then > w3svc..) before sending the alert in SA? > > Jose. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 9:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable > > Our method is to check the URL for content, if that fails > check port 80, if that fails, check the w3svc, if that fails > ping the server. Of course the appropriate actions are taken > at each level as well, restarting services, rebooting, etc. > > This way I only do one check unless something fails. > > -Kevin > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Wilson > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:14 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable > > > > > > I have fount it much more reliable to do a URL check as > > opposed to just checking the w3svc. There have been a few > > times that the service was running but it wouldn't serve up > > web pages. I just created a sacheck.htm page with goodtogo > > as the only text in it and if SA can't read the text then it > > stops and starts the w3svc. > > > > -Fred > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Navarrete, Jose [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 6:05 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable > > > > > > I still can't have a reliable monitoring of w3svc NT Service > > in some Servers but I consider SA a very helpful tool. Jose > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Lewis-Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:05 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [SA-list] SA IS reliable > > > > I have to eat humble pie here. I found that the SA service > > wasn't actually starting automatically after a reboot . > > > > David > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > --- > > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003 > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003 > > > > 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
