21–30 of 52 posts
Monit does this pretty easily http://mmonit.com/monit/ You can monitor web services, processes, file modified dates, directories, loads of stuff all with email alerts and a web-front end too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I don't think my company would use this at the moment until it's proven service that has a good track record and a SLA (what's your up-time guarantee?). That said, I'd use it for my personal projects but not for $19/month. I'd pay about $1/month per monitor.
RE: SLA... the use case is more "I want to know sooner than later that something didn't happen" than "Something didn't happen this minute, I want to know NOW!". If and when we go down, your task won't be able to check in and we'll end up sending you a false "positive" which is better than not knowing at all when something fails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you currently using to make sure your periodic tasks run? As far as making sure DMS runs, we use another third-party to make sure our checkers run. Contact support if you are interested in finding out more.
We have an elaborate system that someone cooked up a while ago that involves a tree of communicating Processes running on different machines that monitor our real time services. If we could consolidate our 'checker' processes into one that may be the right thing to do. Can the system be set up to use authentication to get behind firewalls or do hue things being monitored have to be accessible over the public Internet…
$ curl https://nosnch.in/c2354d53d2
Dead Man's Snitch does not ping your servers. It is the opposite way around. If your server stops pinging Dead Man's Snitch, you will be notified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pricing is more based on value. It is the price my clients said they would be more than willing to pay to never have to panic again when there is some EC2 problem and the backups stopped working weeks ago. This actually happened over the weekend: https://twitter.com/tikaro/status/250286735064436736
I understand that. It's just not that valuable for my personal projects. I'd go further and say, that most of people willing to pay that much (serious about their backups and availability) already have some solution in place. The service is very appealing for people, who don't really care that much (because it's very easy to use). I'm afraid that those people won't pay $19/mo.
I'm sure this will make tons of money and will be amazingly useful as a hip tool for those developers we all know. But honestly the rest of us build this kind of stuff into our company dashboards without thinking twice. Where it belongs, in the hands of an internal team who can share the monitoring of more than $20 worth of "snitches".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you currently using to make sure your periodic tasks run? As far as making sure DMS runs, we use another third-party to make sure our checkers run. Contact support if you are interested in finding out more.
We have an elaborate system that someone cooked up a while ago that involves a tree of communicating Processes running on different machines that monitor our real time services. If we could consolidate our 'checker' processes into one that may be the right thing to do. Can the system be set up to use authentication to get behind firewalls or do hue things being monitored have to be accessible over the public Internet…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
RE: SLA... the use case is more "I want to know sooner than later that something didn't happen" than "Something didn't happen this minute, I want to know NOW!". If and when we go down, your task won't be able to check in and we'll end up sending you a false "positive" which is better than not knowing at all when something fails.
Actually, false positives with alarms are really, really bad - I will start to ignore them very quickly if they're not reliable indicators of an actual problem. EDIT: If you have reasonable default tolerances or the ability to set tolerances on tasks, I'm pretty interested in trying it out - do you integrate or have plans to integrate with pagerduty, or do you simply fire off an email?
We don't replace something like monit to make sure your process continues to run, we are validation that one-off periodic things run... things that are easy to forget about but are important.
I'm sure this will make tons of money and will be amazingly useful as a hip tool for those developers we all know. But honestly the rest of us build this kind of stuff into our company dashboards without thinking twice. Where it belongs, in the hands of an internal team who can share the monitoring of more than $20 worth of "snitches".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, false positives with alarms are really, really bad - I will start to ignore them very quickly if they're not reliable indicators of an actual problem. EDIT: If you have reasonable default tolerances or the ability to set tolerances on tasks, I'm pretty interested in trying it out - do you integrate or have plans to integrate with pagerduty, or do you simply fire off an email?
What I'm saying is, in the rare chance we are down and your service can't check in, that one time we would send a false positive. We wouldn't be flapping between off and on sending you a lot of false positives. The resolution on our checks is so large (the smallest is an hour) that we won't be flooding you with emails in any case. We don't replace something like monit to make sure your process continues to run, we ar…
I really shouldn't have to create an account just to figure out what your pricing looks like.