Re: monit '-i' option?

[Rory Toma]

I really see tuning "-i" if we use a poll cycled muliplier as no worse
than using poll cycles - You have to know what your machine is doing in
order to effectively monitor it.

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 17:07, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> Jan-Henrik Haukeland <address@hidden> writes:
> *
> > In other words I think we should try to find a solution to the
> > problem otherwise and it might very well be that Martin's suggestion
> > is the best solution. That is, to have monit start services at boot
> > time instead of init. I don't know, but I do not think that
> > re-adding -i is the best solution so my vote is, -1 in both cases.
> 
> Oh, I can see that this was a bit insubstantial. Solutions, we need
> solutions, because the problem still remains, especially because
> starting monit from init is a very good idea (as originally proposed
> by Rory) and we also recommend this in the documentation. If we should
> decide not to re-add -i we must at least come up with an alternative.
> 
> The easiest is to add Martin's solution to the init section in the man
> file. But I can see that this solution might not be the most practical
> in many cases, because it may involve (big) changes to a system boot
> setup.
> 
> Are there other solutions, preferably simple? I know to little about
> init, but can something be done there? I'm not thinking about e.g to
> start monit in the last run level and stuff like that because that is
> just a poorer variant of using the -i switch in monit.
> 
> Is it possible that using the -i hack was not so bad an idea after
> all? OK, so it doesn't look good on paper but it might be the simplest
> and most pragmatic solution. Hmm, I'm LOST and I think I will have to
> put my -1 vote on hold.
-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 9       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part