On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, David Nolan wrote: > So, I'm proposing the following changes to Mon. I'll wait a day or two for > the discussion to come in, and then assuming the consensus is 'go', I'll > make the changes to Mon itself, and the monitors that come with the base > package, and I'll send the patches to Jim to be included in the next > release.
I think there should be a release with the current patches before making these changes. If these get put in before the next release, we're looking at pushing the release out at lease one month. In addition, the changes will touch many parts of mon, so any work that others are doing is going to need potentially large changes. I still haven't heard an expected date for the next release, although there has been talk about needing one. Overall the changes seem like a good idea. At this point I think the comments on your proposal cover everything I have to say which in summary is: Keeping things backward compatible is important. Monitors should keep sending text output; maybe a formally formatted summary line is the best place to keep the per-host up/down info. I agree that this is not the best place for the long term. As a long term solution, perhaps we can agree on an alert header, that if not present defaults to the current monitor output handling. If the header is there, we expect that the output will be one line summary, one line hosts down, one line hosts up, remaining lines detail. Allowing us to manipulate hosts is great, but keeping the grouping ability is a must. Another thing that going to the host level buys us is the possibility to have monitor aggregation that many people have asked about. Currently the fping monitor is used in most watch groups, some folks are unhappy that one fping is spawned per group as opposed to one fping for all hosts that need it. -Tom Scanlan _______________________________________________ mon mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
