Sorry to bring up an old thread, but there were no follow up on this. I
just find myself in the same situation (need one-to one mapping for
every hosts) and remembered this old thread.
How hard would if be to add a flag in servicedependency definitions that
force every service dependency to reside on the same host, and ignore
missing services.
So I could write something like this:
define servicedependency {
hostgroup_name pool1,pool2
service_description Master service
dependent_hostgroup_name pool1,pool2
dependent_service_description Slave 1,Slave 2,Slave 3
same_host_dependency 1
notification_failure_criteria c,u
}
And I'd get:
1: dependencies across services on the same host for every hosts defined
in pool1 and pool2
2: missing dependent services would be silently dropped.
Or to be more flexible different values for same_host_dependency could
determine if Nagios does #1 or #1 & #2.
If you don't like #2, doing #1 would already reduce significantly the
config required.
I never checked the pre-flight code, but I'd assume it shouldn't be that
hard. I guess all you have to do is skip dependency creation on
conditional statements.
Thanks,
Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:nagios-devel-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Sluyter
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:58
> To: Nagios-Devel
> Subject: Re: [Nagios-devel] Service dependencies
>=20
> I'm sorry if this is the second time this message gets sent to the
> list. I had a hunch that it didn't make it the first time I sent it...
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Hi all.
>=20
> I was actually wondering about the exact same thing Dirk was thinking
> about! Such a shortcut would really help out in easing the use of
> dependencies.
>=20
> > Try this...
> >
> > define servicedependency{
> > hostgroup_name windows-servers
> > service_description NRPE_NT
> > dependent_hostgroup_name windows-servers
> > dependent_service_description Drive_C
> > }
>=20
> Ethan's solution wouldn't work if you look at it logically. Why?
> Because you're telling Nagios that:
> * All instances of service A in hostgroup X
> * Depend on all instances of service B in hostgroup X.
>=20
> Meaning that all instances of A will "fail" if -any- instance of B
> goes down. That's not what we want to happen, is it? :p
>=20
> Or am I completely off on this? Might be that I'm not reading this
> correctly.
>=20
> As Dirk said: it would be great if there was some shortcut for
> telling Nagios that you want all instances of service A in hostgroup
> X to be dependant of service B on -their-own- host. That way you
> could take care of all dependencies for a whole hostgroup in a matter
> of a few dozen lines of code.
>=20
>=20
> - Thomas Sluyter (Cailin)
>=20
> -----------------------
> This thread is located in the archive at this URL:
> http://www.nagiosexchange.org/nagios-devel.33.0.html?
> &tx_maillisttofaq_pi1[showUid]=3D18830
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Nagios-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/lis ... gios-devel
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]