FAQ: Passive host checks?
Jason Marshall
jasonm at kelman.com
Wed Oct 2 16:52:51 CEST 2002
> Passive *service* checks are well documented; passive *host* checks
> are not.
There are no passive host checks. I tried that already, and it always
uses the active method, and ignores passive updates (which are, granted,
documented as service check updates).
I, too, would like a way to monitor hosts that isn't based on Nagios's
large-grain checking granularity. I can tell within 2 seconds if a router
that lots of other hosts are dependent upon are down -- I don't want the
remote hosts being checked for up to a full minute (and failing, thereby
alerting me) when it's really the router that'd down. If I could tell
nagios (passively) within 2 seconds of the incident that the router is
down, I'd avoid a lot of spurious alerts...
> My current workaround is to define a service called ALIVE and
> report passive service checks for that service, but that is not
> 100% satisfying.
I agree. I haven't looked at the part of the code that would make passive
host checks possible, but it seems like it could be a major undertaking...
And there could be underlying reasons why such a check would be a bad
thing...
---
Jason Marshall, Unix Geek, Kelman Technologies, Inc., Calgary, AB, Canada.
From a Sun Microsystems bug report (#4102680):
"Workaround: don't pound on the mouse like a wild monkey."
"I have great faith in fools:
Self confidence my friends call it." -Edgar Allan Poe
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
More information about the Users
mailing list