X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E527211F6C4F; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:59:42 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -0.717 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.717 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.5] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxUBJS38kL+E; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:59:41 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339A311F6C49; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 04:59:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1FXD1n-000ETq-1y; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:59:39 +0000 Received: from 84.13.244.9 ([84.13.244.9]) by ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk ([192.168.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:59:39 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.3.060209 Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:01:48 +0100 Subject: Re: Gborg still down From: Dave Page To: "Jim C. Nasby" CC: "Joshua D. Drake" , Magnus Hagander , "Marc G. Fournier" , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Gborg still down Thread-Index: AcZllVIVJJ9DnGuMQa6ziX1qN/iawgATa8w7 In-Reply-To: <20060421224531.GV49405@pervasive.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200604/158 X-Sequence-Number: 9934 On 21/4/06 23:45, "Jim C. Nasby" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:41:00PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> Most of the servers are not hosted by hub these days - we have them >> pretty well distributed around the world these days. > > Well, wherever they're hosted monitoring has been an issue for as long > as I can remember. Search not getting updated, list archives not > updated, sites down, etc. > > If individuals hosting these various services aren't monitoring them > adequately then the project itself should be monitoring them. Plus > there's servers/services that I suspect won't get monitored very well by > their owners (mirrors come to mind...) As we already said, we do monitor them. However, we monitor that they are running - ie. Do we get a response from Apache, ssh, rsyncd or whatever. Checking whether the archives/search are serving up to date content would be a whole other (difficult) problem altogether. Regards, Dave