Q: time-saving tricks for Service Dependencies ?
Carroll, Jim P [Contractor]
jcarro10 at sprintspectrum.com
Mon Feb 10 23:22:03 CET 2003
To answer your question first: Yes, as far as I know.
To respond to your statement: Yes, that could perhaps spark a philosophical
debate. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
My goal: To be able to create a servicedependency whereby I can merely add
a host (in the case of host_name / dependent_host_name) or a hostgroup (in
the case of hostgroup_name / dependent_hostgroup_name) such that the trivial
case of a service on a host is dependent on another service *on that same
host* (and not on any other host).
Allow me to attempt to illustrate by example.
define servicedependency{
host_name fizzgig,wingnut
service_description NRPE status
dependent_host_name fizzgig,wingnut
dependent_service_description Check swap
other dependency directives ...
}
I want 'Check swap' on fizzgig to be dependent on 'NRPE status', also on
fizzgig. Similarly, I want 'Check swap' on wingnut to be dependent on 'NRPE
status', also on wingnut. But I do *not* want 'Check swap' on fizzgig to be
dependent on 'NRPE status' on wingnut, nor do I want 'Check swap' on wingnut
to be dependent on 'NRPE status' on fizzgig.
Now that I'm reviewing the Service Dependency links (see URLs below) once
again after a long absence, I suspect that multiple hosts for either
host_name or dependent_host_name could only refer to template tricks, and
not any sort of matrix of dependency. I will proceed with this suspicion.
Comments welcome.
jc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie [mailto:jamie at bclnz.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 3:23 PM
> To: Carroll, Jim P [Contractor]; Nagios-Users (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Q: time-saving tricks for Service
> Dependencies?
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> "..In short: I'd like to take advantage of this time-saving
> feature, but I
> don't want to end up creating logic where a vast selection of
> services are
> dependent on one particular service being up or down.."
>
> -Excuse me for stating the obvious, but I guess that depends
> whether logic
> reflects reality or not...(Hmm. begin debate: "Is Reality
> logic? - Or is
> Logic reality?" ;-)
>
> Aren't service dependencies de-coupled from host dependencies?
>
> jamie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carroll, Jim P [Contractor]" <jcarro10 at sprintspectrum.com>
> To: "Nagios-Users (E-mail)" <nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 8:23 AM
> Subject: [Nagios-users] Q: time-saving tricks for Service
> Dependencies?
>
>
> > Just looking for some 'warm fuzzies' here. In:
> >
> > http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/1_0/templatetricks.html
> >
> > under "Service Dependencies", there appears to be a great
> time-saver.
> >
> > However, I'm concerned that creating this definition will
> mean that *all*
> > hosts defined in the dependent_host_name declaration would become
> dependent
> > on *all* hosts defined in the host_name declaration.
> >
> > (I have a similar concern when using a
> > dependent_hostgroup_name/hostgroup_name approach.)
> >
> > Can anyone say with authority and conviction that (using
> the example given
> > on that page) SERVICE2 on HOST3 is dependent on SERVICE2 on
> HOST1, and
> > SERVICE2 on HOST4 is dependent on SERVICE2 on HOST2, but
> that there's no
> > crossover where SERVICE2 on HOST3 becomes dependent on
> SERVICE2 on HOST2,
> > and likewise with SERVICE2 on HOST4 crossing over to
> SERVICE2 on HOST1?
> >
> > A 1-to-1 correlation would do quite nicely, so long as
> there are N hosts
> > defined on each of the dependent_host_name and host_name lines. A
> > 1-to-many, many-to-1, or many-to-many is *not* what I want.
> >
> > In short: I'd like to take advantage of this time-saving
> feature, but I
> > don't want to end up creating logic where a vast selection
> of services are
> > dependent on one particular service being up or down.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > jc
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nagios-users mailing list
> > Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
More information about the Users
mailing list