[Nagios-devel] Support for check_interval=0 removed?

[Guest]

Hi,

Looking at the latest Nagios code, our automated tests have picked up that if a host or a service's check_interval is set to 0, it is changed to 1.0. This appears to be from commit f99a9a7b which says:

----

commit f99a9a7b09e5253d5442115ae687066a5658fda6
Author: Andreas Ericsson
Date: Wed Aug 14 01:35:19 2013 +0200

core: Disallow zero retry- or check-intervals

If we *do* have zero retry or check-intervals and happen to disable
checks of the type that we have zero intervals for, we'll keep on
scheduling and rescheduling the same checks over and over to run at
the exact same timestamp, which will only cause us to peg the cpu
at 100% and log insane amounts of data to the debug log. Not so hot,
so let's avoid it whenever possible.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Ericsson

----

For hosts, check_interval=0 with active_checks_enabled=1 means "do not regularly check this host but check on demand", this change suggests this is no longer possible.

Is this deliberate? If so, is this behaviour supported in a different way or is it recommended to not use have check_interval=0 anymore.

Ton


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ ... stg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Nagios-devel mailing list
Nagios-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/lis ... gios-devel



This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: ton.voon@opsview.com

[estanley]

As best I can tell, this was a precautionary change. I don't see any reports in the tracker where the problems Andreas cited actually occurred. I've looked over the code, although admittedly not as in depth as I want to, and I don't see how this could happen. Unless anyone has seen the problem of the same checks repeatedly scheduled at the same time, I propose we revert the change. I do plan to investigate further.