[SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Authentication per server vs. per check

[Servers Alive Discussion List]

Title: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction

We're thinking about something similar.

It would more be "authentication per server per check type", meaning once for the services, once for the processes, once for diskspace and once for perfmon.

 

 

Dirk Bulinckx.

 

---

From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 2:10 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] Authentication per server vs. per check

That sounds promising.

 

I tend to have one primary check per server, on which all the others are dependent. This lets me fix the schedule on the primary check, or set that check to maintenance via telnet, to allow for reboots or whatever. I don't know how common this is, but it seemed logical at the time.

 

Could it be an idea to set the logon credentials in such a "primary check", which would be shared by all dependent checks, if they need to log on?

 

//Steve

---

From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 5/12/2006 11:00 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction

The "keep connection open" has to do with the actual network connection, for
a LAN connection that doesn't make a difference, but for a DUN (dial-up
networking) it does make sense to keep it open.

The way it works now is that if you have 8 entries for services on one host,
we will make 8 times the connection (with authentication), that takes time.
With that "brilliant" idea I just had :-) it would take 1 connection and as
such a less time.  Not 1/8 of the current time, but still less.  As we need
to do some upfront work to make a list of all servies that need to be
chekced and for each of them we do need to "ask" for their status.  Still
something I'm going to have a real deeper look next week (I hope).


Dirk Bulinckx.
-----Original Message-----
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:salive@woodstone.nu]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:50 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list]
Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA
Future Direction

Yes.  I have often wondered about that.

As I recall there was some sort of SA setting to keep a connection open.  I
played with it once eons a go and it did not seem to make much difference.
I left it turned off because I did not know what it was doing.

But we are currently logging into the same server over and over again to do
the checks all in a row.  An interesting aside, security folks made us turn
on full security logging.  Server crashed because SA filled up the logs.

Jim F.

-----Original Message-----
From: Servers Alive Discussion List [mailto:salive@woodstone.nu]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 4:31 PM
To: Servers Alive Discussion List
Subject: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list]
RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] RE: [SA-list] Re: [SA-list] SA Future Direction

So if we would get the status of all 8 of those services in one go and use
that for the 8 entries we would be able to speed-up the cycle aspecialy if
for each entry SA needs to redo the authentication.  Just a thought.....


Dirk Bulinckx.

To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to salive@woodstone.nu
To unsubscribe send a message with UNSUBSCRIBE as subject to salive@woodstone.nu