Am 26.10.2014 um 16:51 schrieb Joseph L. Casale:
I am upgrading a couple installs of Icinga to version 2 along with some other
infrastructure
which presents an opportunity to abandon using snmp traps for all the passive
checks.
Before I embark on rolling my own solution, I am curious what others may be
doing or what
Icinga 2 might offer for this functionality.
Not sure what you mean by that other solution, or what should be
different to what a passive check is.
An active check in Icinga 2 can certainly act as passive one too - if
you pass the external check results in a lower interval than the actual
check interval is defined. Of course, the check_command being executed
then should be adopted to something like a "failure happened" thingy
we've all been building with 1.x and check_dummy.
You can use the 'passive' checkcommand here, which is already shipped by
Icinga 2's ITL. Check the documentation for details, please.
Thanks,
jlc
_______________________________________________
icinga-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
--
DI (FH) Michael Friedrich
[email protected] || icinga open source monitoring
https://twitter.com/dnsmichi || lead core developer
[email protected] || https://www.icinga.org/team
irc.freenode.net/icinga || dnsmichi
_______________________________________________
icinga-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
