Re: Automatic Cache Monitoring

From: Dancer <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:35:11 +1000

Yes. I actually use echoping to test _squid_ for liveness. If it ain't live
then as far as I'm concerned it's a problem. I find it a better bet than
testing the box.

echoping -h http://our.organisation.homepage/ proxyaddress:port

Since our homepage is on the same lan as squid, we get a result on the spot. I
_do_ let squid cache the page that I get, since I don't want the status of the
target webserver to affect the query. I only want to know about the proxy.

From a shell-script point of view, echoping returns 0 if it could fetch the
page without trouble. (Therefore the shell variable $? is zero). If it's
anything else, then the fetch through the proxy failed, and all hell breaks
loose as far as getting me alerted is concerned.

D wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm looking for suggestions on the subject of "testing" Squid for general
> aliveness. I maintain several Squid boxes; I already use "echoping" from a
> central location to check that the boxes are alive periodically. However
> Squid occasionally fails but the machine continues to run; hence echoping
> reports all is well but the service is no longer available.
> Does anybody centrally monitor their Squid boxes for signs of life (or
> signs of death)? Is there a product or hack out there that will enable me
> to poke Squid and get an "I'm still here" response? Ideally I'd like to
> approach this by just telnetting to a port and receiving a status report
> back.
> Much thanks
> Richard Stagg

Did you read the documentation AND the FAQ?
If not, I'll probably still answer your question, but my patience will
be limited, and you take the risk of sarcasm and ridicule.
Received on Wed Feb 11 1998 - 04:52:31 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:38:51 MST