I suppose 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: > So starting with > OS-ERR would make it clear I suppose? > > > Dirk Bulinckx. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Passow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:35 PM > To: Servers Alive Discussion List > Subject: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] > in regards to my last > > Yes I know but there are so many different OS messages that if I could just > distinguish between OS messages and actual check result generically that > would be much more efficient. Also I cannot create an alert where extra > info should not contain a or b or c. Therefore I must put in the ones where > I would want the alert and since the countfiles could any integer > (realistically in my situation 5 or 10) I would have a hug number of > duplicate alerts for each integer. > > 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: > >> 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] >> >> >> > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to [email protected]
