About a active plugin in local machine

[Chris Wilson]

Hi Richard,

> Over all I am not a fan of passive
> checks, in my option if the service check is not critical enough to
> perform a active check but wait for the host, then it is a nice to know
> but not critical. 

Then you probably haven't tried to monitor hundreds of hosts or
thousands of services :-) Active checks do NOT scale. Unless you involve
passive checks at some point (even if it's a Nagios slave server
submitting results to a master by passive checks), as your system grows
it will get slower and slower until it falls over when it reaches a
certain size.

> Though my views are slant to our environment, all web sites, each site
> displays a page giving information of the health of the site. From there
> we are firm believers if the service is critical we will actively probe
> it, not waits for it.  

Passive checks submitted to the master, backed up by an active check
from the master if the results become stale, are every bit as good as
active checks in my book. Plus they reduce the load on our monitoring
server by an order of magnitude. Since we don't have infinite resources,
that really helps a lot. And we do still get timely alerts of problems.

Cheers, Chris.
-- 
(aidworld) chris wilson | chief engineer (chris at aidworld.org)



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
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