Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)

2010-06-01 Thread David Lum
+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

Re: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)

2010-06-01 Thread David
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

Re: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)

2010-06-01 Thread Ben Scott
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, David Lum david@nwea.org 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

RE: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)

2010-06-01 Thread John Aldrich
: Re: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...) On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:55 PM, David Lum david@nwea.org 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

RE: Now: monitoring; (was RE: Veering even more OT ...)

2010-06-01 Thread David Lum
...@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 pinging the host. The users are actually