Hello Israel, Israel Brewster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Di 08 Apr 2008 19:32:25 CEST): > On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > >Hello, > > > >(using 3.0.1) > > > >I've a list of hosts, these hosts are not available for ping, but > >normal > >service checks (SSH, SMTP, ...) work. Nagios reports theses hosts > >beeing > >down! Ugly! > > > >If I remember well, older nagios versions "knew" that's enough to see > >one service on a host to know this host has to be up. > > To a degree, yes- if you aren't actively checking the host (as would > appear to be the case from your next paragraph), then as long as all > services on the host are listed as ok, nagios assumes the host is > still ok (at least once running, I don't know how it behaves on the > initial check). However, should any of the services go into a non-ok > state, nagios will immediately check the host (using the host > check_command), wherupon, in your case, it would determine the host to > be down since it can't ping. The state of the other services does not > affect this process, so any other services do not change state.
That's an interesting detail: if ANY of the service checks fails, a host scheck is scheduled. This would explain why the host check takes place and fails (if it's using "ping"). But - my question here, why is *any* failing service a trigger of a host check? Shouldn't be the failure of *all* services this trigger? -- Heiko
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________ Nagios-users mailing list Nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net 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
