Hi, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Paul M. Dubuc <w...@paul.dubuc.org> wrote:
> I agree. It would be nice if the serviceescalation definition would > automatically exclude hosts which don't have services specified by its > service_description. Instead of adding all those host names there, you > could use a host group as I described here: > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=27615125 > > It's a little more work initially, but it's easier to maintain, I think. > You won't have to remember to change the escalation every time you add a > host. It's easier to include a host in the hostgroup you use for the > escalation when you define the host. > Even then maintaining entries in that hostgroup would be cumbersome/error-prone. Anyway, I was fortunate enough to only have two problematic hosts, for which I added simple ping checks, and now using the * wildcard. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ 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
