rab at walkermartyn.co.uk - Email found in subject - Re: Bonding/Teaming Monitoring

Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk
Tue Aug 17 13:34:26 CEST 2010


On 17 August 2010 09:50, Robert Jackson <rab at walkermartyn.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Jim,
>
> I take it I'm looking at duplicating hosts and services if I choose not
> to go down the route of the switches sending traps (just seems like more
> work I can do without)? I was kind of thinking the switches would be
> parents of the ports which in turn would be parents of the network
> devices (servers, pc's printers etc). That way if a port went down for
> instance, I would only get alerts for the port and not for the services
> of the device attached to that port. Seem logical?

That's one way of doing it.  Personally I think it's overkill to
monitor individual switch ports for each server, although there are
always going to be some cases when it's useful to do so.  For ordinary
single-homed hosts, if the switch port is down the host check for the
server will fail anyway - I'm not sure it helps a great deal then to
monitor the individual switch port.  It's all horses for courses
though - ultimately it's for you to decide what is important to you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by 

Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
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





More information about the Users mailing list