[PATCH] new feature: automatic services for hosts

[Joerg Linge]

Ignacio Goyret schrieb:
> At 07:00 AM 11/19/2008 +0100, Hendrik BŠäcker wrote:
>>> The patch adds a new directive "services" to the "host" definitions.
>>> This new directive lists one or more "service" templates which
>>> are used to automatically create "service" definitions for
>>> the host.
>> I've just did a fast read on your patch. Nice work that you patched the
>> documentiotion, too.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BTW, after I sent the patch, my nagios servers started abending.
> It seems that I "cleaned" up the patch too much. :-(
> I'll send an updated patch later in the week, once I'm 100%
> positive that it will be ok. I even found a better place to do
> the auto-instantiation that allows me to handle host templates
> as well.
> 
>> But to the patch: Why do you do it in a host atomic way while it might
>> be less work when doing it on hostgroups?
> 
> Actually, in my experience, it would be a *lot* more work to do
> the same with hostgroups as I had to define one hostgroup per
> service "kind" that I needed to monitor: 1 service + 1 hostgroup.
> 
> Using this new keyword, I only have to define one service template
> for however many hosts happen to need that service check.
> 
> It also allows me to use hostgroups to group hosts by categories
> like mail servers, web servers, compile farm, sybase server, etc.
> 
> Let me give you an example. We have a few dozen NetApps.
> All these netapps have the exact same function: file servers.
> But each one has a different number of volumes defined and in some
> cases, the volume names are not even consistent: eg, one of the
> netapps has vol0, vol1 and vol3 defined (vol2 was removed a while
> back) while others have the sequence vol0, vol1, vol2 and vol3;
> others have a single volume and others have a much larger number
> of volumes.
> 
> If I were to use hostgroups, I would have to define a hostgroup
> per volume name, but then I'd lose the possibility of
> classification by function (well, not _lose_ but it would get
> clouded among hundreds of artifact hostgroups, required only
> by the config files).
> 
> Makes sense?

Yes, makes sense.
I will test your next patch ASAP on my test systems.

Joerg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/