Hi Stephane On 11/12/2012 10:57 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:42:45AM +0100, > Simon Oosthoek <soosth...@nieuwland.nl> wrote > a message of 53 lines which said: > >> so in the host description of e.g. the firewall(s), which are >> reachable through a redundant switchpair, I'd write this: > > You can try but I seriously doubt that Assaf Flatto's answer will > work.
I thought it was quite logical for it to work like that ;-) > > May be check_cluster would be a better approach? Configure > check_cluster to use the status of the two switches and then make your > hosts depend on check_cluster's status. > > http://nagiosplugins.org/man/check_cluster So how would I go about "making the hosts _depend_ on" check_cluster's status? define host { host_name switch1 } define host { host_name switch2 } define host { host_name switchpair check_command check_cluster -s -w @1: -c @2: -d $HOSTSTATEID:switch1$,$HOSTSTATEID:switch2$ } define host { host_name fw1 parents switchpair } define host { host_name fw2 parents switchpair } Can I get away with defining a host without a physical address? Or should I just pick the address of one of the switches for host "switchpair"? Or should the check_cluster be part of a service, but can a service be a parent to a host? Cheers Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_nov _______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list icinga-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/icinga-users
