Re: [Nagios-users] service checks could not be rescheduled properly.
Check out this bug report on the nagios.org bug tracker:
http://tracker.nagios.org/view.php?id=31
On 11/11/2011 10:39 AM, julian_grunn...@tdwh.co.uk wrote:
Hi - does anyone know the answer to the following errors I'm getting in
the nagios.log for a handful of hosts that have a specific timeperiod
for checks set.
[Wed Nov 9 23:46:00 2011] Warning: Check of service 'DEAL SERVER SERVICE
TCP 4099' on host 'TDUKUBS02' could not be rescheduled properly.
Scheduling check for next week...
[Wed Nov 9 23:46:00 2011] Warning: Check of service 'DEAL SERVER SERVICE
TCP 4099' on host 'TDUKUBS01' could not be rescheduled properly.
Scheduling check for next week...
Obviously this is causing major issues as checks are just not being
carried out as expected, the hosts / services are defined as follows:
define host{
use unix_host_template ; Name of host template to use
icon_image win40.jpg
host_name TDUKUBS01
address 192.168.75.84
alias TDUKUBS01 192.168.75.84
}
define service{
use ubs-service
hostgroup_name ubsdealservers
service_description DEAL SERVER SERVICE TCP 4099
check_command check_ubs!4099
check_period ubs4099hours
}
define service{
name ubs-service
is_volatile 0
max_check_attempts 5
normal_check_interval 1
notification_interval 5
retry_check_interval 1
contact_groups dtns-ooh
active_checks_enabled 1 ; Active service checks are enabled
passive_checks_enabled 1 ; Passive service checks are enabled/accepted
parallelize_check 1 ; Active service checks should be parallelized
(disabling this can lead to major performance problems)
obsess_over_service 1 ; We should obsess over this service (if necessary)
check_freshness 0 ; Default is to NOT check service 'freshness'
notifications_enabled 1 ; Service notifications are enabled
event_handler_enabled 1 ; Service event handler is enabled
flap_detection_enabled 1 ; Flap detection is enabled
failure_prediction_enabled 1 ; Failure prediction is enabled
process_perf_data 1 ; Process performance data
retain_status_information 1 ; Retain status information across program
restarts
retain_nonstatus_information 1 ; Retain non-status information across
program restarts
is_volatile 0 ; The service is not volatile
register 0
}
define timeperiod{
timeperiod_name ubs4099hours
alias UBS 4099 Dealserver Monitoring Hours
monday 23:46-20:30
tuesday 23:46-20:30
wednesday 23:46-20:30
thursday 23:46-20:30
friday 23:46-20:30
}
It all looks ok to me, if I manually re-schedule the check above it will
run fine but when it comes to the check being carried out as defined by
the timeperiod above again it will not run and then get scheduled for
the following week.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks - Julian.
Julian Grunnell | Unix Analyst, Infrastructure | TD Waterhouse
T: +44 (0) 113 346 2824 | M: +44 (0) 7889 352527
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
really need to.
Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the
above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in
error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show
them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error.
Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good
computing practice the recipient should ensure that they are actually
virus-free.
Brokerage services provided by TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Europe)
Limited (a subsidiary of The Toronto-Dominion Bank). Authorised and
regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA registered number
141282), member of the London Stock Exchange and the PLUS market.
Incorporated in England and Wales under registration number 2101863.
Registered office: Exchange Court, Duncombe Street, Leeds LS1 4AX.
Banking services provided by TD Waterhouse Bank N.V. authorised and
regulated by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Financial Services Authority
for UK Business (FSA registered number 216791). Incorporated in the
Netherlands and registered as a branch in England and Wales under branch
registration number BR006780.
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
[Nagios-users] Hosts without any contacts or contactgroups
What is the best practice for defining a host without any contacts or contactgroups? We use a custom application to monitor nagios which (among other things) serves as our notifier, so we have no need for nagios-based contacts, etc. Simply leaving out the contacts and contact_groups directives works, but generates a warning for every host we have, which I would like to avoid. Thanks, -- Brandon -- RSA(R) Conference 2012 Save $700 by Nov 18 Register now http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1 ___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Hosts without any contacts or contactgroups
That's what I've got now (below) but it just seems messy, maybe it's
just me!
define timeperiod {
timeperiod_name int_tp_none
alias Internal Timeperiod None
}
define contact {
contact_name nobody
alias Pseudo Contact for hosts with no
contacts
service_notification_period int_tp_none
host_notification_period int_tp_none
service_notification_commands notify-by-epager
host_notification_commandshost-notify-by-epager
}
On 11/10/2011 02:08 PM, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
I have a user called Nobody with no contact times and no contact information
but it's enough to make the system happy.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Phelps [mailto:bphe...@gls.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:02 PM
To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Nagios-users] Hosts without any contacts or contactgroups
What is the best practice for defining a host without any contacts or
contactgroups? We use a custom application to monitor nagios which
(among other things) serves as our notifier, so we have no need for
nagios-based contacts, etc.
Simply leaving out the contacts and contact_groups directives works,
but generates a warning for every host we have, which I would like to avoid.
Thanks,
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
Re: [Nagios-users] Hostgroup tricks?
The correct parameter for defining a host's hostgroups is hostgroups,
not hostgroup.
Try:
define host {
...
hostgroups !ping-servers
}
(Note the pural form, rather than singular)
Brandon Phelps
Global Linking Solutions
O: (704) 973-6855
C: (704) 222-2103
E: bphe...@gls.com
On 11/08/2011 09:45 AM, Tim AtLee wrote:
Hello
I have a hostgroup defined as:
define hostgroup {
hostgroup_name ping-servers
alias Pingable hosts
members *
}
I have recently added a host outside our firewall that has ping
disabled. I have changed the host’s check_command to be ‘check_tcp!80’
so that the host won’t be offline permanently, but I am wondering if
there is a way to exclude this host from the ‘ping-servers’ hostgroup in
the host definition?
Ideally, something like:
define host {
host_name outsidefirewallhost
alias Host outside firewall
address some.ip.address
use generic-host
hostgroup !ping-servers
}
This generates an error when I test the configuration. The only way I
have been able to achieve this is to change the ping-servers hostgroup
definition to exclude this individual host (*,!outsidefirewallhost), but
I’d rather keep the exclusion define in the host, not in the “blanket rule”.
Maybe it’s just me being OCD… but is this possible?
Thanks,
Tim
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
Re: [Nagios-users] Hostgroup tricks?
Actually it seems that the hostgroups parameter does not support negation.
I would go with Mark's answer instead, as that seems to work fine in my
tests.
-Brandon
On 11/08/2011 10:42 AM, Brandon Phelps wrote:
The correct parameter for defining a host's hostgroups is hostgroups,
not hostgroup.
Try:
define host {
...
hostgroups !ping-servers
}
(Note the pural form, rather than singular)
Brandon Phelps
Global Linking Solutions
O: (704) 973-6855
C: (704) 222-2103
E: bphe...@gls.com
On 11/08/2011 09:45 AM, Tim AtLee wrote:
Hello
I have a hostgroup defined as:
define hostgroup {
hostgroup_name ping-servers
alias Pingable hosts
members *
}
I have recently added a host outside our firewall that has ping
disabled. I have changed the host’s check_command to be ‘check_tcp!80’
so that the host won’t be offline permanently, but I am wondering if
there is a way to exclude this host from the ‘ping-servers’ hostgroup in
the host definition?
Ideally, something like:
define host {
host_name outsidefirewallhost
alias Host outside firewall
address some.ip.address
use generic-host
hostgroup !ping-servers
}
This generates an error when I test the configuration. The only way I
have been able to achieve this is to change the ping-servers hostgroup
definition to exclude this individual host (*,!outsidefirewallhost), but
I’d rather keep the exclusion define in the host, not in the “blanket rule”.
Maybe it’s just me being OCD… but is this possible?
Thanks,
Tim
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
--
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
___
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
Re: [Nagios-users] Questions on snmp checks
As far as I know the SNMP checks do not require SNMP to be on the server running the check, only on the remote host. Most of them are simply perl scripts which only require Net::SNMP (and perhaps other modules such as Getopt::Long, etc). You could always try running check_ifstatus (which communicates via SNMP) and see if it works. On 10/10/2011 09:16 AM, steve f wrote: Good Morning All, 1st off, please don't laugh at me, we do EVERYTHING the hard way here. I am in need to check 600 + remote Cisco routers for their primary port secondary port. I am running Nagios Core in a distributed environment, 600 + locations. Each location running a Nagios dist server for 12 local clients. All clients and servers are running SuSE Linux I do not have snmp running on the remote distributed server , SNMP is running on the central server and its running on the remote clients. Here's where the fun starts : 1. I assume I can't run an snmp check to the snmp enabled router from the distributed Nagios server since the server does not have snmp installed ( BTW, NOT an Option ) 2. Could I run a check from the distributed server to one of the clients ( who has snmp installed ) to the router ? ( I know, Rube Goldberg ) 3. If I run the check from my central server out to the 600 Cisco routers, how manageable would that be? Any other thoughts on how I could monitor 2 separate ports on these routers? The primary reason for the check is the secondary port is Broadband we run some security camera stuff thru that port only. I need to know when the broadband connection goes down for obvious reasons. Have not tried any of my solutions as there is some configuration needed for the routers to talk to someone via snmp. Didn't want my Comm guys to do any config work if this idea wouldn't work. Thanks, Steve -- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 ___ 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 -- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 ___ 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
[Nagios-users] Hostgroup Members
Hello,
We are using a fairly old version of Nagios (1.4.1) which has been running
great for years and is in production on 100+ servers so we are a bit hesitant
to update. If it ain't broke don't fix it, right? Anyway, one minor problem
is the fact that in the nagios configuration, the members directive for a
hostgroup can only support a certain number of entries, due to the fact that
the members directive takes a comma delimited list of members and that list, it
seems, can only be a maximum of 2000ish (I think, I don't recall off hand)
characters. Like:
hostgroup {
...
members = Member1,Member2,Member3,...,Member200, Member201, Member202
}
My question is, do newer version of nagios remove this limitation? It isn't
really a huge deal since we can simply create additional hostgroups when we
reach the limit on one, however if this is fixed in a newer version then that,
for us, would be a good reason to upgrade.
Thanks,
Brandon
--
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-d2dcopy2
___
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
Re: [Nagios-users] Hostgroup Members
Thanks Dan. I was aware of the hostgroups directive in the host {} block, but
for some reason my brain never connected the dots.
In that case, does anyone know when support was added for host { hostgroups =
... }, or simply whether or not it is available in version 1.4? I have googled
a bit but can't seem to find the online manual for 1.4.x.
Thanks again,
Brandon
On 09/23/2011 12:14 PM, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
Not sure about in the old version, but what we do is not put the membership
info in the hostgroup definition, but give the host definition a list of
hostgroups it belongs to which is a much shorter list.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Phelps [mailto:bphe...@gls.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:51 AM
To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Nagios-users] Hostgroup Members
Hello,
We are using a fairly old version of Nagios (1.4.1) which has been running
great for years and is in production on 100+ servers so we are a bit hesitant
to update. If it ain't broke don't fix it, right? Anyway, one minor problem
is the fact that in the nagios configuration, the members directive for a
hostgroup can only support a certain number of entries, due to the fact that
the members directive takes a comma delimited list of members and that list,
it seems, can only be a maximum of 2000ish (I think, I don't recall off hand)
characters. Like:
hostgroup {
...
members = Member1,Member2,Member3,...,Member200, Member201, Member202
}
My question is, do newer version of nagios remove this limitation? It isn't
really a huge deal since we can simply create additional hostgroups when we
reach the limit on one, however if this is fixed in a newer version then
that, for us, would be a good reason to upgrade.
Thanks,
Brandon
--
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-d2dcopy2
___
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
--
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-d2dcopy2
___
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
--
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-d2dcopy2
___
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
