In message <7921F8E0-E87F-4A95-895C-A38ABB1D7831 at PacketPushers.com>, Scott Walters writes:
}>
}> Sure, but we'd see up to 13 hours between dns 'red', when BB would
}> get several in that period.
}>
}> I haven't changed hobbit yet to 1 minute checks. I've even made
}> an explicit explanation that I wasn't planning to shorten it to
}> 1 minute checks when we officially switched over, and that was
}> agreed to. However, with the fact that the 1 minute checks did
}> actually make a difference in tracking down and solving the problem
}> with DNS, I may yet have to work on that change.
}
}It sounds like your shop is so tidy that you would have found it and
}fixed it anyway. It was just a little brighter with the shorter
}interval.
I agree we would have found it. I'm amused at the thought of our shop being tidy, but thanks.
}> We'll see what
}> kind of feedback I get after today. Even then, the only thing I'd
}> really be willing to shorten to that frequency of checks are the
}> remote checks, over the network.
}
}I believe hobbit has great 're-test' logic. So if it is down, it
}will test more frequently . . . .
And that's how I sold the 5 minute testing interval. And how I think I'll not have to shorten the interval for hobbit now.
}> I thought it was unnecessary when I originally brought BB into }> production years ago, but it was one of the requirements I ended }> up with to sell switching to BB. Some things can't be checked }> every minute, I have raid checks that can take more than a }> minute to run. } }On the client, 1m samples are opening Pandora's Box . . . .
Everyone really needs to consider what all the effects are of the frequency of the monitoring.
Tracy J. Di Marco White Information Technology Services Iowa State University