Same here. In some cases it's used to confiscate machines off developer
teams that arent utilising them enough ;).
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Brodie, Kent [mailto:user-8fbf1c81e97c@xymon.invalid]
Sent: 08 August 2006 16:48
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: RE: [hobbit] dialup directive not implemented?
Agreed; we use "dialup" on individual hosts that go off a lot (for
example, on printers that departments insist on shutting down now and
then to conserve power)....... I do not use the complex form, simple
hosts only.
Kent C. Brodie - user-da7f7d5174c0@xymon.invalid
Department of Physiology
Medical College of Wisconsin
(XXX) XXX-XXXX
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:user-cf452ff334e0@xymon.invalid]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:38 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] dialup directive not implemented?
We use dialup on individual hosts, not in the way that Mike describes.
If you're coming up with a different way to identify hosts that should
not go red nor notify when they are down, that's fine, as long as the
capability is still there.
Henrik Stoerner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:03:04AM -0500, Mike Serra wrote:
I have a simple question about the "dialup" directive in bb-hosts,
the
one that is supposed to come immediately after a page or subpage
directive, and is used to ping a range of hosts, like a modem pool.
Our
sysadmin tells me that he read (in a man page online?) that this
directive is not implemented. And it's acting like it isn't: we
can't
get it to do anything, despite trying every possible syntax that
could
make sense. But on the other hand people online talk about this as
if
they're using it just fine. So -- is it implemented? We are using
hobbit version 4.2-beta-20060605.
It was implemented some time ago, but I've had reports coming in over
the past couple of months that it doesn't work in the 4.2 test
releases
that are out. I then asked if anyone was using it, because if not I'd
prefer to just rip it out instead of trying to fix it - and so far
noone has stepped forward to say they really need it.
So ... do you need it ? If people want it, I'd really rather implement
it quite differently than the old BB implementation - as a normal
network test associated with a host, e.g.
0.0.0.0 vpnpool.foo.com # iprange=172.16.1.1-172.16.1.100
Regards,
Henrik
--
Rich Smrcina
VM Assist, Inc.
Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Ans Service: XXX-XXX-XXXX
user-61add9955ef9@xymon.invalid
Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org
WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007