Nagios Behaviors

[Todd Barbera]

Hi Mark,

 

I too had submitted an e-mail asking if passing the host properties along to
the services would have some detrimental impact, but I didn't receive a
reply. I agree that it would certainly make the services.cfg file much
simpler to maintain if you didn't have to set up multiple services in order
to create different views for various user groups. For instance, all my
hosts are setup for PING. If I want notifications sent out to specific users
for specific hosts, I have to have multiple iterations of PING in my
services.cfg file. If I try to add all contacts to PING, then the see every
host in the interface. This is not desirable since I only want them to see
the hosts and services for which they have a stake in. I think this is a
greater design question that may be best answered by Ethan, but if anyone
else has thoughts on the matter I'd be happy to hear the response. 

 

Best regards,

 

Todd

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nagios-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:nagios-users-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Garringer,
Mark
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:07 PM
To: 'Nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: [Nagios-users] Nagios Behaviors

 

This may be rather long, please bare with me.

I am currently running Nagios 2.0rc2 with 451 hosts and 1733 services. I've
recently upgraded from Netsaint (0.78b I think). During this upgrade I took
the time to reexamine my configurations to take advantage of the grouping
logic and regular expression features in Nagios. This help make the setup
much easier, faster, and more consistent than it ever was under Netsaint.
Kudos!

All of the following assumes that I'm doing things to the best of my
understanding, and if they are incorrect or misguided in some way, I'd be
more than happy to discuss the 'correct' way of implementing these features.

I'm starting to run into a few operational issues that I'd like to raise.
One of the most annoying is that RECOVERY should actually have a state for
EACH type of RECOVERY that can exist. That way, I'm not getting RECOVERY
notices for WARNINGS that I didn't get in the first place (because I don't
care about WARNINGS in most cases.). I should only ever get RECOVERY for
states which I've already indicated I want to receive their corresponding
original alert from. 

The other is that HOST level notification/check_periods should be inherited
by any service being check on that HOST unless explicitly overridden. 

For example, I have a host with 10 services on it (checking disk space in
various file systems, checking for certain named processes to be running)
and it has a HOST level notification_period (maintenance window) from
Saturday at 1800 till Sunday 1000. Every week. I don't want to, or need to
know about service changes during these times. I'm the user, and I'm
requesting a black out of notifications during this time. If there are
(still) problems after 1000 on Sunday, I do need to know about them or take
action. The best answers I can seem to find seem to be workarounds that will
cause me more overall upkeep and/or are counter to the whole idea of using
grouping logic to begin with. 

Creating a separate, non-dynamic cron offshoot to take care of this for me
while functional requires me to basically go and define another list of
items (and upkeep them) to deal with and is completely external to Nagios. 

Defining each service individually so that they all can have 1 host assigned
to them so they can have different maintenance windows as needed is totally
against the grouping logic and allows again for much easier divergence from
a set standard. Having 25 linux machines all in a linux host group because I
want to check 10 common services rocks. However, not all 25 servers will
have the same (or even overlapping) maintenance windows, so creating 25*10
separate service entries instead of just 10 sucks eggs. Maintaining the
maintenance window at the host level makes perfect sense to me.

Creating more  host groups doesn't seem like any better of a solution and
will just make things more difficult to find under the Hostgroup sections of
the web display.

By not understanding something am I trying to use this in a way which it was
never intended? This seem like a pretty logical feature to me, of course.
Can anyone offer me advice?

Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.monitoring-lists.org/archive/users/attachments/20060207/af21206f/attachment.html>