That is GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks...
At 09:55 AM 10/15/04 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>
>
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
