Steven Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Leif Nixon wrote: > > Steven Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes, that's what I did last week. It ain't no fun. Nagios' handling > > of passive service checks isn't flexible enough. And passive host > > checking Just Isn't Done. > > Once again, considering you have the source at your disposal, I'm sure > you could work something out. Spackling in passive host checking is > easier than some of the alternatives. :)
I'm not sure about that. Cue Ethan Galstad, Nagios' creator: "I am investigating the possibility of adding passive host checks in 2.0. However, allowing passive checks opens a whole new can of worms as far as host check logic is concerned. For instance, if a host is reported (passively) as being down (it was previously up), what should happen with child hosts? Should those be actively checked according to the current tree traversal logic? Also, host checks are performed on-demand only (synchronously), so how do you handle asynchronous results? Host checks also get priority over pending passive service check results, so that has to be figured out. Anyway, it isn't exactly trivial without changing a good portion of how the host check logic works. I'll be looking into it though..." I don't think I want to dive that deep into Nagios just to make it do something it really isn't designed to do. > > Well, each metric could certainly come with default thresholds, > > and if you use some inheritance mechanism you could rather easily > > specify thresholds for all your cluster nodes: > > In a per-node model you have to distribute the new config file to n > nodes every time you change something. Which is kind of a bummer, > since (as I mentioned before) it seems that there's always an initial > tweaking period with notifying mechanisms where you're changing the > config every five minutes. I'm not sure I see the point in distributing the threshold information. As you said, the actual notifications will be issued from a central host, so why not just keep the threshold configuration there? > > That way, you only need to specify any exceptions from the defaults. > > Whooshy enough? > > The mental image I was actually going for was the loading program from > The Matrix, substituting endless streams of configuration directives > for racks o' firearms... Yes, obviously. So I showed how a few configuration lines (cut to Tank, rapidly typing) could specify load thresholds for an entire metacluster (WHOOSH). 8^) > *That* stuff needs to be in gmetad (or a program that fills the same > niche, querying one or more metadaemons or monitoring cores, chewing > on the XML data, and doing something with it). Flap thresholds, > contact info, etc., etc., etc. ... > > Sounds like you're volunteering to write it. :P Here I was, hoping I could inspire someone else. 8^) -- Leif Nixon Systems expert ------------------------------------------------------------ National Supercomputer Centre Linkoping University ------------------------------------------------------------
