The upcoming release (monit 5.35.0) eliminates the delay in the process check, 
which may help to simplify the configuration a bit :) 

Best regards,
The Monit team

> On 24. 3. 2025, at 0:59, Steven Christensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Following up on this for closure, I ended up doing something which included 
> dependencies.
> 
> 1) Created a check for the DNS lookup, with a noalert. It simply succeeds or 
> fails on whether the DNS lookup works.
> 2) Created the actual checking procedure, which has a "depends" on #1.
> 
> I had to add a "for 3 cycles" on #2 because it looks like Monit doesn't 
> actually execute the process checks in an order based on depends statements. 
> Also, there looks to be a one check lag between the actual results and what 
> Monit reports. So the number 3 allowed me to effectively "pause" the checks 
> for #2 based on whether the DNS was working.
> 
> Thanks for all the help!
> 
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:08 AM Tino Hendricks via This is the general 
> mailing list for monit <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Hi Steven,
>> 
>> the only thing coming to my mind if you can’t handle this in the script 
>> you’re using is
>> 
>> https://mmonit.com/monit/documentation/monit.html#SERVICE-DEPENDENCIES
>> 
>> Like, depending on a test for working DNS. 
>> 
>> Cheers!
>> 
>> Tino
>> 
>>> Am 13.03.2025 um 05:23 schrieb Steven Christensen <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi All, I have a use case I am not sure Monit can handle. I looked at the 
>>> document and tried keywords in this mailing list, but nothing came up.
>>> 
>>> I have a script which checks another node for some information, and then 
>>> reports success or failure (via exit code).The script works fine in Monit.
>>> 
>>> But due to some dodgy DNS service, sometimes when the script tries to get 
>>> information from the other node, the DNS lookup fails. So we don't know 
>>> whether the information would have resulted in a success or failure, to 
>>> report to Monit. 
>>> 
>>> My question: Is there a way to tell Monit during that script check interval 
>>> that the results of the check are indeterminate, that it should maintain 
>>> the previous success/failure state until it the next time it is able to 
>>> definitively report a true or false status?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 

Reply via email to