In both cases a down seems normal. Within the alert message, if you use the %e parameter you can see the reason of the down, and that will (in most cases) tell you exactly why you get the down.
Dirk Bulinckx. -----Original Message----- From: Jason Passow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:20 PM To: Servers Alive Discussion List Subject: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] in regards to my last Nope. I was just wondering if somehow it could be done. it seems to me that the check result and an error form the OS should be distinguishable somehow. If I come up with anything I will certainly pass it along. Jason Passow Mississippi Welders Supply [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph: (507) 494-5178 fax: (507) 454-8104 "If you do everything right, nobody will realize you've done anything at all." Dirk Bulinckx wrote: > Currently not. > Can you propose something how you would see this? > > > Dirk Bulinckx. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Passow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:05 PM > To: Servers Alive Discussion List > Subject: [SA-list] in regards to my last > > Is there way Salive can distinguish between actual check failures and > errors returned by the OS? I know that I can use the %e parameter to > alert with certain conditions. However I have the particular alert in > question to alert every 5 down cycles. In this event it was a problem > with the check itself not with the actual condition. There are so many > values to account for that I was wondering if there is any way > programatically to determined the difference? then I could have > separate alerts for when the condition of the check is (or is not) met > and one for if the check fails for another reason. > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected] To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
