Andy Shellam a écrit :
> Hi Guillaume (again!)
>
> I think you've got these the wrong way round.
>
> In your example, if service A depends on B or C, then hosts B and C
> become the dependent hosts. Does this work? (I've not used service
> dependencies a great deal so forgive me if I'm wrong.)
>
> define servicedependency {
> host_name A
> service_description X
> dependent_host_name B,C
> dependent_service_description Y
> }
>
> I think this says that service X on host A depends on service Y on hosts
> B and C.
It says than you have two services Y, running on hosts hosts B and C,
each relying on a single service X, running on host A. If X fails,
monitoring of Y will be affected on both hosts. I'm looking for exactly
the opposite: two redundant authentications backends available, and one
authenticated service, for wich I'd like to avoid useless notifications
if both backends are down.
> Whether this is an AND or an OR (e.g. host A depends on hosts
> B AND C, or host A depends on hosts B OR C) I don't know.
AFAIK, this is purely syntactic sugar for multiple declarations, so
rather an OR relationship.
> PS. Both of your last questions should have been directed at the
> nagios-users list - nagios-devel is for reviewing and submitting
> patches, or other questions that concern the development of Nagios.
>
Indeed.
--
Guillaume Rousse
Moyens Informatiques - INRIA Futurs
Tel: 01 69 35 69 62
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
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
