Re: [Spong-users] check_processes change

[Stephen L J. <sjo...@mo...>]

Stephen

This sounds like the TheState extension for Big Brother. It works similarly 
for work you are describing. But it has a lot more bells and whistles. 
TheState handles  things in a generic fashion rather then just jobs. Check it 
out. I'm sure that it will give you some ideas.

ftp://ftp.deadcat.net/pub/BB/ext/TheState-0.70.tar.gz

I've been trying off and on to create something like TheState in the Spong  
I'm not really had found a way that I've been happy with. Maybe you'll be more 
successful.

Stephen L Johnson <sjo...@mo...>


On Feb 28, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> OK, 
> 
> I am just getting started on this, so I have no code yet, but expect a 
> patch to be sent to the list within the next couple of days.
> 
> It is my intention to extend the "jobs" status light to include well,
> batch jobs. Makes sense huh? 
> 
> The main reason for the heads up is, I think the check_processes module
> should be renamed to check_jobs for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) The "status collumn" that it controls in the spong display is called
>    "jobs" - to make "what controlls what" more evident, this makes sense.
> 
> 2) The new checks I am adding make more sense being called "jobs" than 
>    "processes" because we care IF they ran, not whether they are still 
>    running.
> 
> So unless someone objects loudly, I am going to rename my check_processes
> file and all references to that name to check_jobs and will submit those
> changes with my patch, when its ready.
> 
> The basic idea that I have ATM is to make a directory of files. The files
> will have their time stamps checked. If the time stamp is too old, then
> the status goes yellow or red (based on thresholds set in the spong config,
> possibly overrided by the contrnsts of the files? in any case it HAS to be
> setable on a job by job basis)
> 
> Anyway, thats the idea. We really need it here, and I figure it will be
> usefull to anyone else who has periodic jobs running that fail in 
> interesting ways on an irregular basis.
> 
> I am also thinking of abstracting this into a perl module, on the job end, 
> so that its simply "include this perl module and call this couple of wrapper
> routines and it reports the job status to spong" (that way the backend of how
> it works can be changed independantly of all the scripts - of course then
> a couple of perl scripts could serve as command line wrappers so that shell
> scripts can use it too!)
> 
> Ok... I think I have a more solid idea now :) expect code in a couple of days.
> Comments? Suggestions? Flames?
> 
> -Steve
> -- 
> "The Creation of the Universe was made possible by a grant from Texas 
> Instruments. "
>                 -- PBS 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spong-users mailing list
> Spo...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spong-users