On 27 December 2011 13:32, JM jm+nagios-us...@roth.lu wrote:
Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk writes:
Is the the relevant entry for that service check in
your objects.cache file correct?
I believe so. Do you see something out of the ordinary:
host_name xxx
Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk writes:
your objects.cache file correct?
I believe so. Do you see something out of the ordinary?
I can't see anything wrong with that at all, no.
The only difference I can think of between what you have and what I
have is I don't use an event handler.
Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk writes:
Is the the relevant entry for that service check in
your objects.cache file correct?
I believe so. Do you see something out of the ordinary:
host_name xxx
service_description yyy
check_period24x7
Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk writes:
Can someone tell me why some real services derived from the above template
do not seem to do the freshness checks?
Are you sure they don't do the freshness check?
Definitely, once a trap was received, the state remains critical...
On 27 December 2011 13:32, JM jm+nagios-us...@roth.lu wrote:
Jim Avery jim at jimavery.me.uk writes:
Is the the relevant entry for that service check in
your objects.cache file correct?
I believe so. Do you see something out of the ordinary:
I can't see anything wrong with that at all, no.
Hi there,
consider the following template:
define service {
name x_trap
register 0; DONT REGISTER - ITS NOT
REAL,JUST A TEMPLATE!
host_name host
active_checks_enabled 0
passive_checks_enabled 1
On 23 December 2011 18:48, jm+nagios-us...@roth.lu wrote:
Hi there,
consider the following template:
define service {
name x_trap
register 0 ; DONT REGISTER - ITS NOT
REAL,JUST A TEMPLATE!
host_name host
