[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: URL content checking [Vote]
From: |
Jan-Henrik Haukeland |
Subject: |
Re: URL content checking [Vote] |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Dec 2004 18:20:12 +0100 |
On Dec 2, 2004, at 4:22 PM, Michael Shigorin wrote:
As monit (IMCO) should be quite resistant to system failures
being quite "basemental" software piece (remember SMTP-related
discussion? :), being less fault-prone regarding e.g. broken
libraries for some fancy test (e.g. involving Oracle OCI) would
bring in some solid points over the years and installations.
Nothing in the proposed URL function contradict this philosophy. No
plugin nor external libs are required to realize this functionality.
The point is that monit already have support for url-testing. So what
we actually are doing is to lift up existing functionality into the
control file and wrap it in a new setting. A bit of "glue" coding is
necessary but nothing fancy.
check URL myURLCollection
if failed urls [
http://user:address@hidden/foobar?querystring
http://user:address@hidden/foobar
http://blabla3.com/foobar?querystring
http://labla4.com/foobar?querystring
http://user:address@hidden/foobar
....] # Space or newline separate url-entries
then <action>
And what should be the <action>? As far as I understand,
presumably sending mail/SMS, not restarting apache or restoring
database and/or backup.
Yep, in this case the only meaningful actions would be to either to
call exec or alert.
I may be wrong but a quick perl, ruby, python, heck -- shell
script to GET or lynx -dump the page(s) and some grepper would do
this particular trick.
You are not wrong, but does that imply that it is wrong to implement it
in monit? I think not, actually monit is great for stuff like this.
So all in all, is monit the targeted system-level bulletproof
tool focusing on local processes or is it aiming to become a
distributed infrastructure wielding dozens of plugins?
``Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those
programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.'' But
seriously, monit already does "bulletproof system monitoring" and if
you only need that, stay with monit version 4.4. Monit need to evolve
if it should continue to be alive and an active open-source project. If
there is nothing more to do, the project will die.
So to stay alive we need to add stuff to monit and continuously
refactor and refine it. It's a question about choosing the right
direction for the project. Right now it seems that monit is evolving
into becoming a monitoring swish-army knife which doesn't sound to bad
in my book.
Sorry for being verbose and kind of "anti"sh again, but I tend to
criticize the things I like most -- the rest isn't worth it :)
I know it comes from a genuine interest in monit so I do very much
appreciate your points of view and comments. But don't expect us to
follow them all the time :)
(...and I'm just an hour back from the meeting where I've
presented monit to fellow colleagues
Nice, BTW I hope everything is okay and that things will settle in your
country.
--
Jan-Henrik Haukeland