<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:03 AM, Gary Every wrote:</div></span></div><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">In your services file:<br><br>define service {<br> use generic-service<br> name Ping<br> host_name multi_homed_server_name<br> service_description Ping Second IFace<br> check_command check_ping2!10.1.1.100!3000,10%!10000,20%<br> contact_groups Unix<br>} <br><br>for your checkcommands:<br><br>define command{<br> command_name check_ping2<br> command_line /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_ping -H $ARG1$ -w $ARG2$ -c $ARG3$ -p 5<br> }<br><br><br>check_ping2 adds the first ARG as the ip address that you want monitored - This means that the HOSTNAME will remain the same, but a diff interface will be checked.<br><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; "></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; "><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div>Thanks for the response. If I understand your reply correctly, though, this just adds a second service for the host, with a separate IP from that specified in the host directive. it does not, however, allow me to monitor the HOST on two separate IP's, taking into account that if either interface is up, the host is up. Perhaps my question wasn't quite clear enough. Take, for example, the following situation:<div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>host a has two network interfaces: a primary with an IP of 10.1.1.100 and a secondary with an IP of 10.1.1.101.</div><div>Host a can be reached through either interface.</div><div>Host a has its host address defined as the primary of 10.1.1.100, with a check command of check_ping</div><div>Host a also has a service defined as above, checking the secondary interface (10.1.1.101)</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>If the secondary interface goes down, then everything is fine: nagios notices that the service for the secondary interface is critical, checks the host on the primary, sees that as being fine, and sends an alert about the service (secondary port), while leaving the host in an OK state. This is exactly as it should be.</div><div> </div><div>However, now imagine that the primary interface goes down instead. Nagios attempts to check the host on the primary interface, which also fails (sicne the interface is down), and therefore nagios alerts that the host is down, and any devices behind it are unreachable. This, however, is incorrect-since the secondary interface is still connected and fully functional, the host and everything behind it is still up and reachable. What I want is a situation where Nagios will send me an alert if either interface of a host is down, but only consider the host to be down if BOTH interfaces on the host are down. As I explained in my original posting, I have considered a couple of options that may accomplish this, but neither seems as elegant as I would like. Thanks for any thoughts!</div><div><br><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>-----------------------------------------------</div><div>Israel Brewster</div><div>Computer Support Technician</div><div>Frontier Flying Service Inc.</div><div>5245 Airport Industrial Rd</div><div>Fairbanks, AK 99709</div><div>(907) 450-7250 x293</div><div>-----------------------------------------------</div></div></span></div></div></span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; "><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "></div></span></div></div></span><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Israel Brewster <<a href="mailto:israel@frontierflying.com">israel@frontierflying.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> I have a number of devices on my network that have dual-interfaces<br> such that either one can go down, but the device itself, and all the<br> devices behind it (in the case of a router) is still up and reachable.<br> What is the best way to set up monitoring of such devices, considering<br> that as far as I can tell you can only assign one IP per host? I have<br> looked at check_cluster, but if that is the best method I am unsure of<br> the best way of implementing it. Things I have thought of:<br> <br> 1) Create two "dummy" hosts which are the two ports, and then a third<br> host with a check command of check_cluster that looks at those two<br> dummy hosts. This seems overly complicated, not to mention cluttering<br> up my configs and nagios interface with three hosts where there is<br> really only one.<br> <br> 2) Simply monitor the two ports as two separate hosts. This could<br> work, but again clutters things up with multiple hosts where only one<br> exists, and adds the requirement of multi-parenting any child devices,<br> which can get ugly, especially in a graphical representation of the<br> network.<br> <br> I have read <a href="http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/2_0/clusters.html" target="_blank">http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/2_0/clusters.html</a>, but<br> that doesn't seem to apply, at least not directly, in that it refers<br> either to situations where you have redundant services on one or more<br> hosts (perhaps that is sort of what I want?) or to where you have<br> multiple redundant hosts, but not to the situation where you have one<br> host offering one service over two ports. The main problem with that<br> doc, though, is that the cluster is always a service, which wouldn't<br> work in my situation, as the host itself is a cluster. Any thoughts?<br> Thanks.<br> -----------------------------------------------<br> Israel Brewster<br> Computer Support Technician<br> Frontier Flying Service Inc.<br> 5245 Airport Industrial Rd<br> Fairbanks, AK 99709<br> (907) 450-7250 x293<br> -----------------------------------------------<br> <br> <br> <br> -------------------------------------------------------------------------<br> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft<br> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.<br> <a href="http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/" target="_blank">http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/</a><br> _______________________________________________<br> Nagios-users mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net">Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br> <a href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users" target="_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users</a><br> ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue.<br> ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null<br> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Gary Every<br>"Pay it Forward!"<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>