Distributed Monitoring

[Chris Wilson]

Hi all,

I'm trying to implement distributed monitoring with Nagios, to reduce
the load on our servers as the redundant load balancers each evaluate
the state of each server. However, I have run into a problem which I
could again use your help with.

We have two distributed servers which control the redundant load
balancers, and should forward the results of active checks to each
other. When both servers are up, they will randomly distribute active
checks between themselves, running an active check whenever the current
status becomes stale. If one server goes down, the other should
automatically take over monitoring of all services, as all the results
become stale.

The problem is that when a passive service check result is received by a
distributed server, it is treated exactly the same as an active result,
in that the OCSP handler is called. This means that the two distributed
servers end up sending each other the same events in a loop, until the
NCSA packet timeout expires.

There doesn't appear to be any way for the OCSP handler to know whether
the result was received from an active or a passive check (and thus to
ignore passive checks, preventing loops). Does anyone know if it's
possible? I can't see any macro for this purpose documented at
[http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/1_0/macros.html].

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



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&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