> Not sure what you mean by that other solution, or what should be > different to what a passive check is.
Hi Michael, Sorry that wasn't clear. I was more concerned with abandoning the use of snmp traps and perhaps using some other remote interface like rest for example in order to submit results. I am trying to avoid something like nsclient for example which doesn't help. The instance I am monitoring may have its own facility for code execution or I may not want additional software on either endpoint. Submitting checks through an existing api would be convenient. However I wasn't opposed to setting up a rest based service that wrote to the cmd pipe. > 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. Yup, this is exactly what I do. Thanks, jlc _______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
