Ah Dirk, you're a scholar and a gentleman :) Alistair Francis Systems Administrator Comm Express Services SA (PTY) LTD TEL: +27 (0)11 475-5567 FAX: +27 (0)11 475-6238 CELL: +27 (0)82 608-0181
The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential to the Matragon group of companies and may enjoy legal privilege. The contents are intended solely for the addressee and access thereto by anyone else is unauthorised. Should you not be the intended recipient, kindly delete the message and inform us. Any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please also note that any action taken, or omitted to be taken in reliance on the information contained herein is done at your own risk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: 15 October 2004 09:55 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on In v5 you can have something for the wally's :-) which is a MAINTENANCE until, that way if wally forget's the maintenance, SA will remove it... Also in v5 you can have an overview alert, this will be send OR after each cycle OR at a specific time of day, this overview can (this is an option!) include the maintenance entries too. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alistair Francis Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 8:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on You know what might be handy along these lines. What about the facility to gen an alert if a check is in maintenance mode? I'm thinking along the lines of, you have a check on something with 20 dependecies and sub dependencies. Some wally decides he needs to do something on the target of the top level check so he sets it to maintenance. He then does his thing and forgets to set it back to active. In this scenario it would be useful to have some kind of alert generated to say that the status is UNAVAILABLE due to the check being in MAINTENANCE mode. Obviously this would need to be an optional thing. What do you guys think? Rgds, Alistair Francis Systems Administrator Comm Express Services SA (PTY) LTD TEL: +27 (0)11 475-5567 FAX: +27 (0)11 475-6238 CELL: +27 (0)82 608-0181 The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential to the Matragon group of companies and may enjoy legal privilege. The contents are intended solely for the addressee and access thereto by anyone else is unauthorised. Should you not be the intended recipient, kindly delete the message and inform us. Any disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please also note that any action taken, or omitted to be taken in reliance on the information contained herein is done at your own risk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael D. Shook Sent: 14 October 2004 21:09 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on You know, I just wrote a really long concept, but then I realized that if I' m going to be in the GUI to put a check in maintenance, I can just as easily take another check out of maintenance. J Oh, well. Michael D. Shook Technical Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 863 668 4477 (work) 863 860 4070 (cell) 863 665 1261 (fax) www.saddlecrk.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on Can you give me a real example of this? Dirk. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D. Shook Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on Or, what about a similar case to have a check performed ONLY if the dependor was in maintenance. Michael D. Shook Technical Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 863 668 4477 (work) 863 860 4070 (cell) 863 665 1261 (fax) www.saddlecrk.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg A Weigold Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on But if B already has a dependency on something else.... :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ "Dirk Bulinckx" <dirk @woodstone.nu> Sent by: salive-owner 10/14/2004 13:25 Please respond to salive To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on if b depends on a, and a is in maintenance, and b will not be seen as down but as unavailable, that's already like that in the current product.... Dirk. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg A Weigold Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on Well, if Server A was in maintenance, and Server B depended on it for access to something (like FTP services), instead of reporting a down indicating Server B was down, you might report UNAVAILABLE due to Server A (FTP Service) not functioning... or some odd thing like that... I guess that reporting something in MAINT instead of DOWN might make a big difference in reporting statistics.... Greg ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such purpose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ "Dirk Bulinckx" <dirk @woodstone.nu> Sent by: salive-owner 10/14/2004 13:00 Please respond to salive To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on What would be the use of that? Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of gene Martinez Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [SA-list] Depends on Has anyone thought or wanted/needed a check to depend on something being in the maintenance mode? I know you have have the check depend on up or down, but I was thinking you might want to have a check that depends on something being in maintenance? Any thoughts? Regards, Gene [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eclipse.net/~njkat ------------------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive ------------------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive ------------------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive ------------------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive ------------------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive
