On 1/29/07, Josh Yost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Program End[01-22-2007 11:35:01] Lockfile > > '/usr/local/nagios/var/nagios.lock' is held by PID 8228. Bailing > > out... > > > > Try killing all nagios processes, erase the lock file, and start Nagios > again. > > See if that helps at all.
When I kill the nagios process (there's only one according to "ps fax | grep nagios") the lock file is removed. I did just notice something interesting though, with the permissions, are they correct? /usr/local/nagios/etc # ls -altr ../var/ total 484 -rw-rw-r-- 1 nagios nagios 239 Jun 21 2006 downtime.dat -rw-r--r-- 1 nagios nagios 0 Aug 10 09:21 mail.log drwxr-xr-x 10 nagios nagios 240 Sep 28 15:35 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 nagios nagios 1793 Jan 23 10:23 comments.dat drwxrwxr-x 2 nagios nagios 8408 Jan 29 00:00 archives drwxrwsr-x 2 nagios nagios 80 Jan 29 09:59 rw -rw------- 1 nagios nagios 151347 Jan 29 09:59 retention.dat -rw-r--r-- 1 nagios nagios 123198 Jan 29 09:59 objects.cache -rw-rw-r-- 1 nagios nagios 45622 Jan 29 09:59 nagios.log -rw-r--r-- 1 nagios nagios 6 Jan 29 09:59 nagios.lock -rw-rw-r-- 1 nagios nagios 145469 Jan 29 10:00 status.dat drwxrwxr-x 4 nagios nagios 344 Jan 29 10:00 . The lock file doesn't have write permissions for, what, group? Is this thing some how looked at or..whatever...when an alert is sent? I personally can't figure out what a lock file would have to do with alerts but, what do I know... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nagios-users ::: Please include Nagios version, plugin version (-v) and OS when reporting any issue. ::: Messages without supporting info will risk being sent to /dev/null
