cott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 1:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)
> I'm of the "test as you operate" ...
I generally agree. However, I expect your operations do not consist
of pin
es
Subject: Re: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, David Lum wrote:
> Which brings up a question as I've had this debate with
> my network architect. He says when monitoring servers to
> ping by IP instead of hostname "in case
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, David Lum wrote:
> Which brings up a question as I've had this debate with
> my network architect. He says when monitoring servers to
> ping by IP instead of hostname "in case DNS goes down". My
> point is you should be testing for that infrastructure anyway so
> pi
Kind of a chicken & egg problem, seems like. Your network guy is right as
far as that technically goes, but I'm with you. If DNS goes down, that
needs to be the first order of business, since your business will start
grinding to a halt anyway. I'd feel silly, pinging a server and not know
that D
+1, I've smoked my Service Desk guys on that EXACT error before (not that I've
ever done the same bonehead thing myself to burn this into my head)
Setting up monitoring dependencies follows the same thing - no need to PING
test a remote server if you can't ping a the local switch, or the remote
