Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:30:47 +0400 From: Igor Robul <igorr@speechpro.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reducing the timeout on a TCP connection Message-ID: <20060807083047.GB27084@sysadm.stc> In-Reply-To: <20060801152107.eba203fa.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <20060801150226.0c911297.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> <000401c6b59e$92d942d0$3c01a8c0@coolf89ea26645> <20060801152107.eba203fa.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:21:07PM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>:
>
> > This is why the snmp protocol uses UDP, Bill.
> >
> > You need to use something other than TCP for
> > monitoring.
>
> Well ... if I'm monitoring a server that uses TCP (PostgreSQL) I can't
> rightly establish whether or not it's successfully accepting connections
> unless I used TCP as well.
>
> I understand where you're coming from, but I can't see how I can use
> UDP to solve my problem.
You can do 2-step monitoring:
1) Monitor1 monitors PostgreSQL via Unix domain socket, possible also
it monitors presense of postmaster process
2) Monitor2 monitors Monitor1 and you "connect" to Monitor2 via UDP.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060807083047.GB27084>