[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No Alerts

From: Chris Lopeman
Subject: Re: No Alerts
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:00:51 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

I think both the empty block and "none" or "nothing" keywords would be good. I tried one and I looked for the other. Since we are talking about what the check process alert message should allow.... My first attempt was actually to code the alert without an address. Assuming it would apply to this check for the default address. That syntax is not allowed. To me it should be. It would shorten and simplify my script. It would also allow me to have one place to change my alert destination. Instead right now I have 15 places to change but they are all the same. Basically rendering the global one useless.

But anyway, thanks for the fast response and the solid answer. Sounds like I am on the right track at least.


Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

Chris Lopeman <address@hidden> writes:

I was hoping to setup Monit to issues no alerts on certain checks,
just to have it monitor and do restarts.

check process sshd with pidfile /var/run/
       alert address@hidden on {}  # Dont alert

But that generates a syntax error.  Is the right way to accomplish
this to alert filter to something that will never happen

check process sshd with pidfile /var/run/
       alert address@hidden on {uid}  # Dont alert

One "right way" is just to skip the alert statement for that
particular check entry. But for this to work you must not use a global
SET ALERT statement. Maybe we should allow an empty alert filter block
as you first tried or use a "none" keyword for no alters? For example:
alert address@hidden on {none}


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]