LVS
lvs-users
Google
 
Web LinuxVirtualServer.org

Re: Bug in mon?

To: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lmb@xxxxxxx>, "Skliarouk Peter" <skliaroukp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Bug in mon?
Cc: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Ted Pavlic" <tpavlic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 13:53:46 -0400
There are a few services in which chat scripts may not be desirable. For
example, SSL or SSH.

Have people really been having a problem with slowdowns and such? My
linuxdirector checks a plethora of services every check and seems to respond
close to immediately when a real server goes down. I'm using mon on top of
that.

Another idea regarding alerts. I've never used ldirectord -- is it C? Perl?

If it's perl, it'd be easy to have it read in a configuration file of alerts
which really would be more like a list of files to include. It could then
include those files (error checking would be needed to be sure that if any
of those files had a little bug in them they wouldn't take down the whole
ldirectord) and call functions within those files of the same name of those
files. Does that make sense? That would keep the ldirectord from spawning
new processes to just use perl, yesno? It would have already compiled those
and would just be calling local functions.

For example...

ldmonmod.conf =====
pop_mon.pl
=====

ldirectord parses that conf file, includes pop_mon.pl, and then runs the
pop_mon alert.

Extra information could be stored in the conf file regarding how to handle
running that particular monitor...

Would increase the memory footprint of ldirectord, but wouldn't that help to
speed things up and integrate the monitors more directly into the daemon?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lmb@xxxxxxx>
To: "Skliarouk Peter" <skliaroukp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Bug in mon?


> On 2000-07-03T12:04:30,
>    Skliarouk Peter <skliaroukp@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
> > I submitted patch for ldirectord (1.11) to support connect type checks.
>
> If someone felt like doing this, I imagine a general "chat"-like scripting
for
> the checks would be most sensible. Perhaps the chat code could be
borrowed.
>
> OTOH, this appears the perfect place where to apply "expect": Your mileage
may
> vary.
>
> Unfortunately, no code, just two ideas...
>
> Sincerely,
>     Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
>     Development HA
>
> --
> Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
>
>
>
>



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>