state change question

[C. Bensend]

> I'm trying to track down an issue and am not sure If I'm following what is
> happening correctly. We had a service go critical and start sending
> alerts.
> The service was then acknowledged so it would stop sending notifications.
> The problem with that service was then "resolved" by getting the service
> into a WARN state instead of getting it back to OK. The service then ended
> up going critical again but it never sent a notification on the hard state
> change from WARN to CRITICAL. Is it possible that because it never went
> back
> to OK the acknowledgement never went away? I'm reading through the docs
> and
> I don't see anything that covers this scenario. Is this expected behavior
> or
> am I missing something and need to do more digging?

Take a look at the documentation regarding "sticky" acknowledgements.

A sticky ack will disable notifications until the service RECOVERS.
A non-sticky ack will disable notifications until the service
CHANGES STATE.  It's a very important distinction.

It's for this very reason that I patched my Nagios source to make
acknowledgements NOT sticky by default, instead of the opposite.

Benny


-- 
Whoever said that hell hath no fury like a women scorned never
owned a cat.
                                                  -- bash.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users
::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. 
::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null