I was verifying documentation when Wolfgang replied... and then looking if
you might be recovering from a soft error (are these contiguous log
entries?).
In any case, there is likely a subtle configuration error (such as the one
Wolfgang eluded to, previously) that's explained, here...
http://docs.icinga.org/latest/en/statetypes.html
--
Russell M. Van Tassell
russ...@geekoncall.net
This message was sent from my wireless phone.
On Nov 5, 2013 3:18 AM, "Wolfgang" <w...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Please check the setting of max_check_attempts.
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 05. November 2013 um 11:31 Uhr
> *Von:* "Niels Monen" <niels.mo...@henz.nl>
> *An:* "icinga-users@lists.sourceforge.net" <
> icinga-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
> *Betreff:* [icinga-users] Missing HARD OK
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have a problem which I don’t understand. In the reporting we see a
> service with a downtime of 18hours. I found out in the logs that the
> service isn’t going into an HARD OK.
>
>
>
> Day 1: SOFT OK
>
> [1382756584] HOST ALERT: host;DOWN;SOFT;3;CRITICAL - x.x.x.x: rta nan,
> lost 100%
>
> [1382756616] SERVICE ALERT: host;Terminal
> Services;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Socket timeout after 10 seconds
>
> [1382756626] HOST ALERT: host;UP;SOFT;4;OK - x.x.x.x: rta 1.283ms, lost 0%
>
> [1382756723] SERVICE ALERT: host;Terminal
> Services;CRITICAL;SOFT;1;TermService: Unknown
>
> >[1382756903] SERVICE ALERT: host;Terminal Services;OK;SOFT;2;OK: All
> services are in their appropriate state.
>
>
>
> Day 2: HARD OK
>
> [1382583650] HOST ALERT: host;DOWN;SOFT;1;CRITICAL - x.x.x.x: rta nan,
> lost 100%
>
> [1382583710] SERVICE ALERT: host;Terminal
> Services;CRITICAL;HARD;1;Connection refused
>
> [1382583730] HOST ALERT: host;DOWN;SOFT;2;CRITICAL - x.x.x.x: rta nan,
> lost 100%
>
> [1382583800] HOST ALERT: host;UP;SOFT;3;OK - x.x.x.x: rta 1.855ms, lost 0%
>
> >[1382583820] SERVICE ALERT: host;Terminal Services;OK;HARD;1;OK: All
> services are in their appropriate state.
>
>
>
>
>
> There is no "OK;HARD;" in "Day 1" for the Terminal Services, which results
> in a "downtime" till the next "OK;HARD;" (next reboot) of this host in the
> reporting. We don't want to have the SOFT states included in our reports.
>
> Could someone explain to me why Icinga decides to give it a "OK;SOFT;" and
> never that day an "OK;HARD;" for Terminal Services?
>
>
>
> Met vriendelijke groet/with Kind Regards,
> Niels Monen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
> Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models.
> Explore
> techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
> from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and
> register
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> icinga-users mailing list
> icinga-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/icinga-users
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
icinga-users mailing list
icinga-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/icinga-users
