RE: [Nagios-devel] Re: [Nagios-users] Version 2.0 timeframe?
Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 am
> I am still trying to figure out what to do about passive host checks,=20
> as there are a number of scenarios where they will not function as=20
> people would expect. This mainly affects distributed monitoring,=20
> where the host topology on master and slave servers does not look the=20
> same. For this reason, passive host checks would probably have to be=20
> tweaked so that DOWN states get translated into UNREACHABLE states=20
> (and vice versa) where appropriate. I'm still not sure how or if I=20
> should implement that internally in Nagios.
When you implement this translation, it might be a good idea if=20
it could be turned off, eg. "use_distributed_translation=3D0" in=20
nagios.cfg. This is to be able to use an all-passive nagios top node=20
(i.e central nagios host) as a dummy that reflects the nagios
leaf nodes' (i.e distributed nagios hosts') world view.
Bj=F8rnar
This post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]
> as there are a number of scenarios where they will not function as=20
> people would expect. This mainly affects distributed monitoring,=20
> where the host topology on master and slave servers does not look the=20
> same. For this reason, passive host checks would probably have to be=20
> tweaked so that DOWN states get translated into UNREACHABLE states=20
> (and vice versa) where appropriate. I'm still not sure how or if I=20
> should implement that internally in Nagios.
When you implement this translation, it might be a good idea if=20
it could be turned off, eg. "use_distributed_translation=3D0" in=20
nagios.cfg. This is to be able to use an all-passive nagios top node=20
(i.e central nagios host) as a dummy that reflects the nagios
leaf nodes' (i.e distributed nagios hosts') world view.
Bj=F8rnarThis post was automatically imported from historical nagios-devel mailing list archives
Original poster: [email protected]