Re: [Nagios-users] strange behavior disabling checks
On 08/08/2012 03:16 PM, Marco Borsani wrote: > Hi all > > > > Sometime happen that when I set "active_checks_enabled 0" in a service > and reload the configuration, Nagios did not recognize the instruction. > > The server still executes the check. > It happens if you have enabled state retention data and disable active checks from the webinterface and then enable them again. In that case, altering the configuration doesn't help, since the saved retention state still claims you've manually overridden the configuration. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.erics...@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace. -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ 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] strange behavior disabling checks
Where did you set the directive ? in a template or in the individual service ? Can you share the relevant configuration data ? On 08/08/12 14:16, Marco Borsani wrote: Hi all Sometime happen that when I set "active_checks_enabled 0" in a service and reload the configuration, Nagios did not recognize the instruction. The server still executes the check. It is very strange, because I use several Nagios servers since 2003 and it is the first time for me with this problem Any idea ? Regards, Marco -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ 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 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ 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] strange behavior disabling checks
Hi all Sometime happen that when I set "active_checks_enabled 0" in a service and reload the configuration, Nagios did not recognize the instruction. The server still executes the check. It is very strange, because I use several Nagios servers since 2003 and it is the first time for me with this problem Any idea ? Regards, Marco -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ 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
