Dave Warren wrote: >>We run Intel equipment (mostly) and monitor all that too. Still, it >>sounds like you've decided to trust your daemon-watcher daemon? We do >>not use daemon-watchers simply because it's impossible to tell when to >>stop. If you trust your watcher, you might as well trust the daemons >>it watches. > > There is no reason that monitors can't monitor other monitors too, in > the software world.
I was assuming (perhaps wrongly) that we're not talking an N+1 high-availability environment where many processes "monitor" their peers by heartbeat etc. I don't count that kind of setup as "daemon-watching". > In the hardware world, an unnoticed overheat will result in the > equipment going down, which would trigger whatever monitors that box > to report failures. Certainly. Although I would monitor the temperature instead. Once the equipment is down, it's too late. We monitor datacenter/machine temperature as they are critical operating factors that must be maintained within certain boundaries. Anyway, this is way, way off-topic here - my apologies for keeping it going. /Per Jessen, Zürich _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
