Re: additional feature for monit-3.0 (for clusters)

[Oliver Jehle]

I think, this will be the  solution for the
"autostart-naming-meaning-problem".
with mode, there is a small change in the parser, and a clear statement for
the users about
the meaning of the flags...

when i began play with monit, i'm very confussed about the meaning of
autostart... because it wasn't only
a autostart, the monitoring was also disabled... when turned off..

with this change (and my changes) and hearbeat, i think we have to
possibility to build clusters with the
same functionality like tru-cluster (HP/Compaq) or SUN with the Sun-Cluster
software... they offer perhaps
some enhancement like auto-take-over of disks and filesystems, but it's a
small script to import a vg and mount
a filesystem...


so i vote for mode instead of the autostart




Martin Pala wrote:

> Christian Hopp wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>Agree - some suggestions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>A though one, a new name :-) If we do not find a good name (I'm
> >>blank), we could combine, that is, use automonitor and autostart and
> >>set the value properly in the parser, i.e. override the value of
> >>autostart if it's true. (and document this behavior)
> >>
> >>BTW, using monit together with heartbeat is interesting, do you
> >>think you could write a FAQ or man file entry for this Oliver? (When
> >>we figure out what the statement should be)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I am kinda confused about all that... maybe it's simply to high level
> >for me... no peeking and poking the system.  So could some one give me
> >a short reason/explanation... why we should do all these many
> >confusing "set auto.*" things.
> >
> >Couldn't it be integrated in the set autostart?  What about
> >"set autostart=[yes|no|manual]"?  As Hauk already mentioned... we
> >shouldn't bloat the language.  With that we won't even have the
> >problem with the "xor" thing.
> >
> >Christian
> >
> >
> >
> Not bad, but i thing it is not clear enough. If we still would change
> the name for 'autostart' statement, the only name that occures in my
> mind is maybe:
>
>  'mode [ active | passive | manual ] '
>
> where 'mode' is statement keyword (replacement for 'autostart') and:
>
> active ... in this mode monit will watch the process and will restart it
> if it doesn't exist (equals present autostart=yes)
> passive ... monit will start monitoring process but it doesn't do
> restart if it doesn't exist ((equals present autostart=no)
> manual ... monit will enter 'active' mode after instructed to start this
> service, otherwise it woun't monitor this service at all
>
> I'm not sure if it will solve this problem - maybe it will be better to
> keep 'autostart' as mentioned Christian. What about it?
>
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> monit-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-dev