Hosts.cfg question, service configuration question, ldapv3

Quanah Gibson-Mount quanah at stanford.edu
Tue Nov 18 18:53:12 CET 2003


1) In the hosts.cfg file, it allows you to specify a check command to 
execute.  I am currently using check-host-alive for this option.  However, 
I see no way to configure how *often* you want this command to be executed. 
Thus, it looks like it is more reasonable to implement a ping service 
instead of using this command if you want the host to be checked regularly.

2) In the service.cfg file, it seems I have to define the same service 
block for every host of a given service.  This seems rather redundant to 
me.  For example, we have 9 ldap servers available for our general pool.  I 
have to define a service block for all 9 of those hosts that contains 
exactly the same information for each one, other than the host name.  Will 
the host_name directive for service be modified to allow you to enter 
multiple host names if you so choose?  This would allow me to have a single 
service definition instead of 9.

3) Will the check_ldap command be updated to allow Ldap v3 binds?  The 
current check_ldap command only seems to work with servers that have V2 
enabled.  We don't enable v2 on some of our servers.

Thanks,
Quanah

--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems
ITSS/TSS/Infrastructure Operations
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
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