Perhaps it could be feature that can be turned on or off. Via a check
box by the dependency. Check dependent is still up before sending down
alerts.
Jason Passow wrote:
Just want to point out that this has been suggested before. I
personally think it is a good feature, but Dirk say
Just want to point out that this has been suggested before. I
personally think it is a good feature, but Dirk says this could cause
you to miss an actual down condition of the subordinate check. It may
have actually been down and by checking it again you missed the
original down.
[EMAIL P
Since a while SA has
check item dependencies: subordinated checks won't happen if superordinated
checks fail. So far a good feature.
But: during a check
cycle, if the link to a remote server fails and a subordinated check currently
runs, than I get a storm of alerts for all related check i
All config in an XML file. Parsable and manageable -
yet editable by hand, notepad, etc.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:46 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Make a
Make a proposition and I can see if it's possible or
not.
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D.
ShookSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:37 PMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Everything. :)
I wan
what "everything" is.
-Kevin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D.
ShookSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:39 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
The issue could be summed up quickly.
Mike's boss s
3 860 4070 (cell)863 665 1261 (fax)www.saddlecrk.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:18 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
What kind of check info and people/team info would you
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:18 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
What kind of check info and people/team info would you
want?
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D
Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:39 PM
To: salive@woodstone.nu
Subject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product Feature
The issue could be summed up
quickly.
Mike's boss said, "Give me a
single report that has all of the equipment that impacts Customer X,
what happens when we see it go down, w
What kind of check info and people/team info would you
want?
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D.
ShookSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:14 PMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Well, since I am restricted to
assow
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:24 AM
To: salive@woodstone.nu
Subject: Re: [SA-list] Future Product Feature
A lot of that can be accomplished using the enterprise version (or the
standard with special code) by logging everything to a database. You
can log the check results
TECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:59 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Mike,
The kind of reporting you would like is not within Servers
Alive as such. I also don't think that any other product will have
this. W
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:35
AMTo: salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future
Product Feature
I tend to agree with most of the
other responses I've seen on this. Multi-threading I'd kill for, but having a
separate db doesn&#
k)863 860 4070 (cell)863 665 1261 (fax)www.saddlecrk.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason
PassowSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:24 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: Re: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
A lot of that can be accomplished using the enter
we agreed to."
Mike :-(
Michael D. Shook
Technical Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
863 668 4477 (work)
863 860 4070 (cell)
863 665 1261 (fax)
www.saddlecrk.com
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:35 A
Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:35
AMTo: salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future
Product Feature
I tend to agree with most of the
other responses I've seen on this. Multi-threading I'd kill for, but having a
separate db doesn't really float my boat. I grant
espond to
salive@woodstone.nu
To
salive@woodstone.nu
cc
Subject
Re: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
At 09:29 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
Dirk,
We have had lots of discussion about SA here, and overall we love the product.
If we could ask for only one feature in future releases it wou
ch different
in that respect.
Ian
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
"Michael D. Shook"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
17/05/2005 17:35
Please respond to
salive@woodstone.nu
To
cc
Subject
RE:
t[EMAIL PROTECTED]863 668 4477
(work)863 860 4070 (cell)863 665 1261 (fax)www.saddlecrk.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:07 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Well that's j
> I would like to see multi-threading, but I have worked around all the
It's "in the works"
I personally, wouldn't spend the $ to have it rely on SQL server..
because what happens when it goes down? no tests get done.
I dont' see any problem with the way it is -- i wouldn't mind seeing
the en
in
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D.
ShookSent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:35 PMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
OK, I can't resist...
How many people would be willing to part with serious $$$
to have a v
EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael D.
ShookSent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:35 PMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
OK, I can't resist...
How many people would be willing to part with serious $$$
to have a version of SA that ha
Of Michael D.
ShookSent: den 17 maj 2005 18:35To:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
OK, I can't resist...
How many people would be willing to part with serious $$$
to have a version of SA that has NO (ZERO, NONE) of it's configuration or check
l Analyst[EMAIL PROTECTED]863 668 4477
(work)863 860 4070 (cell)863 665 1261 (fax)www.saddlecrk.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk
BulinckxSent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:07 AMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: RE: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Well that&#
Title: Future Product Feature
Well that's just an almost complete rewrite
:-(
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vogl, TomSent:
Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:30 PMTo:
salive@woodstone.nuSubject: [SA-list] Future Product
Feature
Dirk,
We have had lots of
8-881-3400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg D. Moore
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:40 AM
To: salive@woodstone.nu
Subject: Re: [SA-list] Future Product Feature
At 09:29 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
Dirk,
We have had lots of discussion about SA
At 09:29 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
Dirk,
We have had lots of discussion about SA here, and overall we love the product. If we could ask for only one feature in future releases it would be this:
The separation of the SA check engine from the interface. This way the engine could be started as a
27 matches
Mail list logo
