RE: Monitoring Software Configuration for Debian server.
Everyone,
Thanks for all the great ideas and info. This is part of what makes the
debian community so great. :)
I will be trying your suggestions shortly. I'll be sure to report on the
outcome.
Thanks!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Malinovich [mailto:demonbane@the-love-shack.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:07 PM
To: debian-amd64@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring Software Configuration for Debian server.
On Sat, 2008-01-19 at 12:56 -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
--snip--
> He tells me that when he investigated he found that one of the drives
> had failed silently some time earlier, and the RAID was covering for
> the failed drive by using the other. He also told me the SMART stuff
> had provided no indication of any trouble.
Not all RAID controllers will provide SMART info from the drives, so using
SMART status to check your array health is a very bad idea. The only sure
way to know when a drive in an array fails is to monitor the array itself
via appropriate tools.
> Should I ask further about *exactly* what he had set up abd report
> back here? (by the way, it wasn't Debian, nor was it and AMD-64, so
> this is technically off-topic.)
My guess would be that, as I said above, he had some SMART monitoring tools
going, but no RAID monitoring tools. He just had log entries from the RAID
kernel driver telling him that a drive had failed, and probably wasn't
checking his logs regularly enough. (This is where logcheck comes in handy,
as Steve mentioned previously.)
--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net
keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008
7:32 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1232 - Release Date: 1/18/2008
7:32 PM
Reply to: