Go to All Forums

Better Error Detection

I've discovered that the "Comments" section of an exported Outage Report can sometimes be a bit misleading - This is the section that generally gives us more information about the error that site/server is reporting. As an example, I've found that a comment reading "Internal Server Error" can really mean a lot of different things. I'm guessing that you guys are just looking at the HTTP response and converting that into something more "human readable" but I think we can do better if Site24x7 can somehow interpret the error that is actually being displayed on the page. For example, if a WordPress site has trouble connecting to its database, Site24x7 reports an "Internal Server Error", which is technically correct. However, if I look at a screenshot of the error that WP produces, it clearly reads "Error establishing a database connection".

Again, reporting the 500 response as an Internal Server Error is correct, no argument there - But it's a lot less useful than the rest of what's being reported.

What I would like to suggest is trying to account for "some" errors of the most commonly used web applications and with that, somehow make the Site24x7 application smart enough to be able to scrape those specific errors when they do appear. I have some ideas about how this might be possible, with options ranging from giving the user (me) the power to do this on a per-check basis with customer inputs, all the way to you guys taking the onus to do it yourselves. I'm happy to talk further about how this might work if you folks are interested. I'm confident it will give the tool a real boost in terms of how actionable the reporting is.
Like (1) Reply
Replies (1)

Re: Better Error Detection

Hi dgorman,

Yes this is a great suggestion. Giving a more details content is the smarter way of showing errors.

Do you have a list of error messages that we can integrate in our system?

It would be great if you or others could give a list of messages and the application name that would give that error here in this thread. 

We will try to implement them in our future release.

Thanks once again for raising this request.  

Like (0) Reply

Was this post helpful?