<tt>nagios-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net schrieb am 07.08.2008 13:37:24: > Than make the host check a "check_dummy!0!Host assumed to be up" pull > the plug on that host and enjoy the spam when your host goes down. > > An an exercise, you can do the same on a router and it's 1,000 hosts > behind it, pull the plug on the router and watch your mail server melt > down as nagios starts sending 10,000 notifications at once :) > > Seriously, hosts implement two type of dependencies: > > 1. Service depend on the host being up > 2. Child hosts depend on parent host being up (will send UNREACHABLE > notifications instead of DOWN on child hosts, and those can be filtered out) > > In most setups you will need at least one of these dependencies, so if > you remove host checks you will need another simple and obvious way to > define them. Do you have a suggestion for that? </tt> <tt>I think you seriously misunderstood him Thomas.</tt> <tt>He just suggested that we should drop the notation of hosts, services and</tt> <tt>such. As in real all they are is objects depending on each other. Yet the</tt> <tt>fact, that they have different names, makes things more complicated then</tt> <tt>needed and they put up several limitations.</tt> <tt>If you'd go over to a "pure object definition", it could look like this:</tt> <tt>(definition is simplified for easy of reading)</tt> <tt>define object {</tt> <tt>name coreswitch</tt> <tt>check check_icmp</tt> <tt>}</tt> <tt>define object {</tt> <tt>name webserver01</tt> <tt>check check_icmp</tt> <tt>depending_on coreswitch</tt> <tt>}</tt> <tt>define object {</tt> <tt>name DISKS</tt> <tt>check check_disks</tt> <tt>depending_on webserver01</tt> <tt>}</tt> <tt>etc.pp.</tt> <tt>I hope you get the point.</tt> <tt>Right now the current host- and servicedefinition merely do the same "inside",</tt> <tt>yet nagios just tries to "simplify" things for us, so that we do not need to make</tt> <tt>services depending on their hosts - nagios does that for us.</tt> <tt>Sadly that also burdens us with some limitations, for example can't services</tt> <tt>be dependent on other hoststates.</tt> <tt>If we would have simple object definitions, where we could freely choose all</tt> <tt>dependancies we want - Nagios would even be more powerful in my opinion.</tt> <tt>Even better: it would be totally easy to build up hashtables with pointers</tt> <tt>for checking logics of depencies and such, as there is no need anymore</tt> <tt>to handle hosts and services different. It's all the same.</tt> <tt>There would be no more limitations of any kind, yet it of course makes</tt> <tt>things a little bit more complicated to configure.</tt> <tt>But with some standard templates that could easily be taken care of.</tt> <tt>Regards</tt> <tt> Sascha</tt> -- Sascha Runschke Netzwerk- und Systemmanagement Telefon : +49 (201) 102-1879 Mobil : +49 (173) 5419665 Fax : +49 (201) 102-1102105 GFKL Financial Services AG Vorstand: Dr. Peter Jänsch (Vors.), Jürgen Baltes, Dr. Till Ergenzinger, Dr. Tom Haverkamp Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr. Georg F. Thoma Sitz: Limbecker Platz 1, 45127 Essen, Amtsgericht Essen, HRB 13522