Hi, Jochen, Thank you again. I think that you found where the problem is, I mean, the base/checks.c::is_host_result_fresh() code. I change the lines in the checks.c as below: ======================================================== FROM: Lines 2439 - 2440 if(temp_host->freshness_threshold==0) freshness_threshold=(temp_host->check_interval*interval_length)+temp_host->latency+additional_freshness_latency; TO: if(temp_host->freshness_threshold==0){ if(temp_host->state_type==HARD_STATE || temp_host->current_state==STATE_OK) freshness_threshold=(temp_host->check_interval*interval_length)+temp_host->latency+additional_freshness_latency; else freshness_threshold=(temp_host->retry_interval*interval_length)+temp_host->latency+additional_freshness_latency; } ======================================================== It is working well, as expected. My retry interval is 1 minute and hosts are taking about 2 minutes to change SOFT states. The logs are: BEFORE the changes: [1292854105] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 1s (threshold=0d 0h 5m 15s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. [1292857824] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 1s (threshold=0d 0h 5m 15s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. [1292859117] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 52s (threshold=0d 0h 5m 15s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. AFTER the changes: [1292859297] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 59s (threshold=0d 0h 1m 38s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. [1292859417] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 31s (threshold=0d 0h 1m 22s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. [1292859597] Warning: The results of host 'host1' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 47s (threshold=0d 0h 1m 44s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. So, I´d like to known the developers opinion. It´s a bug or it´s not? Are you intending to change the source code? If not I will have to change it myself always when a new Nagios version is released. Thanks a lot, Rodney. <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Jochen Bern <<a href="mailto:Jochen.Bern@linworks.de">Jochen.Bern@linworks.de</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On 12/17/2010 12:10 PM, Rodney Ramos wrote: > Than I understood that you confirm the problem </div>I confirm that my 3.2.3 autodetermines the host's freshness threshold as check_interval+additional_freshness_latency, even in SOFT non-OK cases, when active checks would use retry_interval instead. I'm not calling it a "problem" yet, though, because the specifics you quote (apparently from a local copy of the docs ?) are absent from the docs at <a href="http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/freshness.html" target="_blank">http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/freshness.html</a> . Nonetheless, when I compare base/checks.c::is_host_result_fresh() to base/checks.c::is_service_result_fresh(), it seems that the latter *does* do the if-then-else you describe, while it's absent from the former: [...] /* tests whether or not a service's check results are fresh */ int is_service_result_fresh(service *temp_service, time_t current_time, int log_this){ [...] /* use user-supplied freshness threshold or auto-calculate a freshness threshold to use? */ if(temp_service->freshness_threshold==0){ if(temp_service->state_type==HARD_STATE || temp_service->current_state==STATE_OK) freshness_threshold=(temp_service->check_interval*interval_length)+temp_service->latency+additional_freshness_latency; else freshness_threshold=(temp_service->retry_interval*interval_length)+temp_service->latency+additional_freshness_latency; } else freshness_threshold=temp_service->freshness_threshold; [...] /* checks to see if a hosts's check results are fresh */ int is_host_result_fresh(host *temp_host, time_t current_time, int log_this){ [...] /* use user-supplied freshness threshold or auto-calculate a freshness threshold to use? */ if(temp_host->freshness_threshold==0) freshness_threshold=(temp_host->check_interval*interval_length)+temp_host->latency+additional_freshness_latency; else freshness_threshold=temp_host->freshness_threshold; [...] I have no idea whether that's intentional, though ... <div class="im"> > 18:56:13 Warning: The results of host 'Unfresh' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 59s > (threshold=0d 0h 15m 17s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. > 18:56:23 HOST ALERT: Unfresh;DOWN;SOFT;2;(null) > > --> It´s wrong. It should be about 18:42:05, 2 minutes after the SOFT1, as > your retry_interval is 2 minutes. > > 19:28:13 Warning: The results of host 'Unfresh' are stale by 0d 0h 0m 39s > (threshold=0d 0h 15m 18s). I'm forcing an immediate check of the host. > 19:28:23 HOST ALERT: Unfresh;DOWN;SOFT;3;CRITICAL: All life functions > terminated > > --> It´s wrong. It should be about 18:58:23, 2 minutes after the SOFT2, as > your retry_interval is 2 minutes. </div>(You missed the spurious *second* SOFT2 between these two, which upends the prediction of "correct" check times even further ...) P.S. to my previous mail: I also noted that, in spite of the config saying "initial_state o", the host was listed as PENDING in the CGIs after the first reload. Is that expected behaviour? <div><div></div><div class="h5"> Kind regards, J. Bern -- Jochen Bern, Systemingenieur --- LINworks GmbH <<a href="http://www.LINworks.de/" target="_blank">http://www.LINworks.de/</a>> Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt | Robert-Koch-Str. 9, 64331 Weiterstadt PGP (1024D/4096g) FP = D18B 41B1 16C0 11BA 7F8C DCF7 E1D5 FAF4 444E 1C27 Tel. +49 6151 9067-231, Zentr. -0, Fax -299 - Amtsg. Darmstadt HRB 85202 Unternehmenssitz Weiterstadt, Geschäftsführer Metin Dogan, Oliver Michel </div></div></blockquote></div>