On 05/09/2012 10:37 PM, Frost, Mark {BIS} wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a little confused about this. I've been eagerly awaiting these
>>> gee-wiz-bang space-age changes, but when I looked over the change list
>>> for 3.4.0 that Ethan sent they seem like mostly minor changes. Or
>>> perhaps they just don't
Bleh. It's too late and to sit up and rebase 160-odd patches on top of
20 to fix a single broken one.
For those using the 3.4.0 release, I've cherry-picked all patches that
went in the 3.4.0-release apart from the broken execvp patch and added
them on top of the worker-process code.
If anyone's i
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:a...@op5.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 3:53 PM
> To: Nagios Users List
> Cc: Frost, Mark {BIS}
> Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Any upcoming release?
> On 05/09/2012 07:45 PM, Frost, Mark {BIS} wrote:
>> Andreas,
>>
>> I'm a littl
On 05/09/2012 07:45 PM, Frost, Mark {BIS} wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:a...@op5.se]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:34 AM
>> To: Nagios Users List
>> Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Any upcoming release?
>
>> On 04/05/2012 07:31 AM, Yu Watanabe wrote:
>
On 05/09/2012 06:23 PM, Mike Guthrie wrote:
> Hey Phil,
>
> Thanks for the clarification on this. I was trying to figure out why
> we hadn't come across this issue on our local dev environments. Maybe
> some other users can chime in on this, but my understanding was that
> compiling with the embed
On 05/09/2012 05:15 PM, Randal, Phil wrote:
> I should have mentioned that that error only occurs if you try to
> compile Nagios 3.4.0 with embedded perl support.
>
> There's also no guarantee that it'll work properly even with that
> patch. I had problems check_mk with Nagios 3.4.0, but unfortun
> -Original Message-
> From: Andreas Ericsson [mailto:a...@op5.se]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 4:34 AM
> To: Nagios Users List
> Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Any upcoming release?
> On 04/05/2012 07:31 AM, Yu Watanabe wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I would like to know if there are any pla
I wouldn't rush to deploy Nagios 3.4.0 until this nasty bug's fixed:
http://tracker.nagios.org/view.php?id=332
Cheers,
Phil
--
Phil Randal
Infrastructure Engineer
Hoople Ltd | Thorn Office Centre | Hereford HR2 6JT
Tel: 01432 260415 | Email: phil.ran...@hoopleltd.co.uk
From: Randal, Phil [mailt
Hey Phil,
Thanks for the clarification on this. I was trying to figure out why we
hadn't come across this issue on our local dev environments. Maybe some
other users can chime in on this, but my understanding was that
compiling with the embedded perl option tends to be problematic due to
me
> When you upgrade to a threaded mail reader you will understand :-)
>
> Actually, replying to another thread to start your own is considered
> 'hijacking'
There is probably a bit of snobbery with mail agents going on. Many
people are stuck with abominations like Outlook, which are often set up
t
On 09/05/2012 14:33, Meyer, Bruce wrote:
HiJacking a thread? What are you talking about? If I had maintained
someone's subject but changed the content, that is hijacking a thread.
Merely hitting 'reply' and deleting the subject and replacing it, deleting
the body and writing my own does not seem
I should have mentioned that that error only occurs if you try to compile
Nagios 3.4.0 with embedded perl support.
There's also no guarantee that it'll work properly even with that patch. I had
problems check_mk with Nagios 3.4.0, but unfortunately, I haven't got the time
or test environment t
Hi - I've had a request to perform a logfile check on a server 3 times a
day, the requestor though has stated that they would like an email
notification if the plugin runs successfully and as such the return code
will be zero (0). To me this seems a little back to front - they want the
email no
Replying in-line, as is the common form on this list.
On 05/09/2012 03:33 PM, Meyer, Bruce wrote:
>
> HiJacking a thread? What are you talking about? If I had maintained
> someone's subject but changed the content, that is hijacking a thread.
> Merely hitting 'reply' and deleting the subject and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Meyer, Bruce [09.05.2012 15:33]:
>
>
> HiJacking a thread? What are you talking about? If I had
> maintained someone's subject but changed the content, that is
> hijacking a thread. Merely hitting 'reply' and deleting the subject
> and replacing it,
I would agree with this as well, usually easier I think then trying to
cross-connect everything together and make sense of all of it. Make them
standalone, and then use something like Multisite which can bring all of them
together in one view so it all appears to be one box setup.
Dan
From: J
HiJacking a thread? What are you talking about? If I had maintained
someone's subject but changed the content, that is hijacking a thread.
Merely hitting 'reply' and deleting the subject and replacing it, deleting
the body and writing my own does not seem to me, to qualify as hijacking a
thread.
This is exactly how I do things, except I have three sites.
Jeffrey
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, C. Bensend wrote:
>
>
> I've dealt with this situation before, and I've ended up
> implementing two mostly standalone Nagios systems. They each
> check their own site, so if their external network goes
> Interesting - How does it work though - I mean if the firewall plays up
> at
> Site A, it thinks everything in Site B is down - so Nagios GUI marks
> everything as down - what happens then if say a server in Site B does
> actually go down - we will not get alerted to that?
That's correct. But
Thanks Phill
On 05/08/2012 04:03 PM, Randal, Phil wrote:
Hi folks,
Trying to compile nagios 3.4.0 gave me this
error:
checks.c: In
function ‘run_async_service_check’:
checks.c:714
Sorry replied on wrong mail :)
-Original Message-
From: Ulf Gunnarson [mailto:ulf.gunnar...@kau.se]
Sent: den 9 maj 2012 12:49
To: 'Nagios Users List'
Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] 2 Nagios boxes running together in different
locations
Citrixkontot
/U
-Original Message-
From:
Citrixkontot
/U
-Original Message-
From: C. Bensend [mailto:be...@bennyvision.com]
Sent: den 9 maj 2012 12:39
To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] 2 Nagios boxes running together in different
locations
> We have a bit of a tempermental firewall at the mom
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:53:56AM +0100, FTL Nagios wrote:
>Interesting - How does it work though - I mean if the firewall plays up at
>Site A, it thinks everything in Site B is down - so Nagios GUI marks
>everything as down - what happens then if say a server in Site B does
>actually go down - w
Interesting - How does it work though - I mean if the firewall plays up at
Site A, it thinks everything in Site B is down - so Nagios GUI marks
everything as down - what happens then if say a server in Site B does
actually go down - we will not get alerted to that?
I made a slight error in my ori
> We have a bit of a tempermental firewall at the moment that keeps "going
> down" thus resulting in everything appearing down to Nagios in Location A
> and it alerting like a loonatic for all hosts/services (88/156)
You could monitor the firewall, and configure it to be the parent of
the hosts b
Hi all,
We run 1 nagios box in our Office at location A - this monitors all
servers/websites etc in Location A and a remote office in Location B hooked up
with a static VPN
We have a bit of a tempermental firewall at the moment that keeps "going down"
thus resulting in everything appearing dow
On 05/07/2012 09:06 PM, Meyer, Bruce wrote:
> Using a mac
>
That's beside the point. Don't hijack someone elses thread if you want
your question answered, since threaded view of the mailing list makes
it appear as if you're responding to someone else's question when you
take their mail, hit "repl
27 matches
Mail list logo
