Good pickup.. I mean place the entry in maintenance for <delay> time. Maybe instead of using "delay" keyword, we could use "Restart-In" for the restart in 30 mins example, and "Restart-At" for a restart at 19:30. Thanks for considering this. Regards /gjs
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dirk Bulinckx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:55 PM Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > Do you mean that the entry should be place in maintenance for <delay> time > OR that we should way <delay> time before putting it to maintenance? > > If it's "place in maintenance for <delay> time", then the word delay isn't a > good word :-) Maybe some other suggestions for the word? > > > > Dirk. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of mrkirra2001 > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 11:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > I hope this V5 functionality extends the MAINTENANCE command line utlity, > and can handle +30 minutes (or the like). > Example... > maintenance hostname=voyager hostport=4301 hostnumber=1 > action=maintenance delay=30min /start > That way if the batch file this is in crashes before the restart is > actioned, the server will be taken out of maintenance and found to be down. > I would use this feature at lot! > Regards > /gjs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dirk Bulinckx > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 4:56 AM > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > The point is that we don't know exactly when the next scheduled check will > be. For each cycle we check if "now" is active or not. Finding the first > active moment isn't that easy at all. AND even more as said before in 99% > of the cases the next active moment is simply the next cylce, so in 99% of > the cases that option is simply useless. > In v5 there will be an option to put an entry into maintenance until ... > (date/time) > > > Dirk. > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Carroll, Andy > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 8:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > Dirk / Michael, > > Dirks examples seem to cover the sort of functionality I am describing, see > separate reply on this slightly earlier. > > However as the SysAdmin, I am not the only support person who has access to > and controls the Servers Alive Interface, and to make it as fool proof as > possible, Michael's suggestion of having "right click menu as two options, > one for the user to enter a time period, and a second to set the > 'maintenance until' to when the check is set to go on 'maintenance by > schedule' as an internal calculation?" would be an excellent way to > implement this, as it would not require the person putting the check into > maintenance to fully understand the check cycles, they would only need to > understand that if they put in into maintenance until it was scheduled to go > into maintenance, then the check would be re-activated at the correct time > for the next instance of this check becoming active. > > Thank you for continuing to consider this requirement. > > Regards, > > Andy > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Dirk Bulinckx > Sent: 02 July 2004 15:56 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > What is more general then letting the user decide for how long? > > > Dirk. > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Michael D. Shook > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > I understood that, I was proposing something that might meet your request > "to try to make the tool as general as possible." > > Mike > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Dirk Bulinckx > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > IF the schedule makes it that SA isn't doing many check for that specific > entry , then having a MAINTENANCE until for just 1 hour should not be a > problem. > Look at my "other example" > > Dirk. > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Michael D. Shook > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 4:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > My limited understanding of the issue as proposed: > > In order to set the 'maintenance until' to the next scheduled time period > then, the user has to know what the schedule is, then set the 'maintenance > until' to run into that time period so that it goes from 'maintenance until' > directly to 'maintenance due to schedule'. The problem here is that with a > large number of checks, I'm not going to remember all the different > schedules. I would have to open up the check, see what it's schedule was, > calculate a good time, then cancel out of that, then set the 'maintenance > until' setting. > > What about this, if SA internally kept it as 'maintenance until' BUT offered > an option to automatically calculate that time based on the checks schedule > if it has one? This could be inserted into the right click menu as two > options, one for the user to enter a time period, and a second to set the > 'maintenance until' to when the check is set to go on 'maintenance by > schedule' as an internal calculation? > > Would this solve both user requests and be workable? > > Michael Shook > Technical Analyst > Saddle Creek Corporation > 723 Joe Tamplin Industrial Blvd > Macon GA 31217 > 478 742 8740 ext. 105 (work) > 478 256 9318 (mobile) > 478 742 7917 (fax) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.saddlecrk.com > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Dirk Bulinckx > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [SA-list] Possible Future Feature Request > > > I think you might be misunderstanding how this would work. > Let me try to explain. > > Example: > entry_1 has a schedule that says NOT to check on Friday from 6am until > 8pm > > On Friday at 4am you maunal set it to maintenance (NOT changing the > schedule!) for 4 hours > > This means that the next cycle let's assume at 4:10am the entry is not > checked since it's in maintenance. > ... > At 8am (to be correct first cycle after 8am) we remove the maintenance > flag (4 hours after the time it was set to maintenance), and we see that due > to the schedule is set NOT to be checked -> entry is not checked. > > > First we look at the maintenance/active flag. And IF that flag gives an > "active" as result then we check the schedule. > > So from what I can understand from what you want to do this should not be a > problem. > > > Other example: > entry_1 has a schedule that says to check on Wednesday from 8am until > 9am > On Wednesday at 8:15am you put the entry into maintenance for 1 hour > On Wednesday at 9:15am we remove the maintenance flag and check the > schedule and see that we should not check it. > ... > > > Do you understand? > > Dirk. > > -------------- > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > With the following in the body of the message: > unsubscribe SAlive > > > > > -------------- > > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > With the following in the body of the message: > unsubscribe SAlive > -------------- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive
