Robin Kearney wrote:
> >
> > Setting up inetd.conf entries is a one-time shot. Using ssh is considerably
> > more overhead, especially if you call the monitors frequently, and have more
> > than a couple of them in inetd.conf. The inetd method is very efficient in
> > comparison to repeated ssh
Nate Campi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:41:31AM +0100, Robin Kearney wrote:
> > >
> > > Setting up inetd.conf entries is a one-time shot. Using ssh is considerably
> > > more overhead, especially if you call the monitors frequently, and have more
> > > than a couple of them in inetd.conf.
Tom Scanlan wrote:
> first off, i'm not really sure which services you are trying to restart.
> i think what you are saying is that instead of using ssh to get into
> the remote machine and execute a monitor, the ex-guru was using inetd to
> execute the scripts. it is possible to use inetd in thi
Actually, you can also monitor disk space with a monitor I wrote which
simply utilizes an inetd.conf entry on remote systems (which runs a
"df -k" command as user "nobody"), optionally wrapped with TCP wrappers.
I'm not sure if this monitor has ever gone into the distribution, but
I'd be glad to p
Peter HOLZLEITNER wrote:
> > some people believe
> So what's YOUR opinion?
>
> > that SNMP is the work of the devil and creates another security
> hackable avenue.
> I say it can't be beat for querying status parameters (hint: stateless
> ...)
> You don't have to allow any writing whatsoever .
