2011/3/21 Vainiokangas Marko <[email protected]>
> At the moment, with distributed monitoring with NSCA, you have to have the
> service defined on both icinga-servers.
>
>
>
> This gives a lot of overhead when creating new services. Is it possible to
> define a host or hostgroup on the master server that will automatically and
> dynamically display and update hosts on the icinga-core web UI regardless of
> what service it receives from the secondary icinga-server?
>
The only overhead is in the initial setup. You can synchronize the objects
that your distributed host has in common with those on your master server
using a number of methods... rsync or through post hooks in git to name two.
The trick is to have the parent templates that are being used defined
slightly different on each server. For the things you are checking on your
distributed host you have active checks disabled and notifications enabled
on the master server, while on the distributed server the active checks are
enabled and notifications are disabled.
It's usually wise to define a separate templates for this purpose so you can
still use the normal templates for active checks that are only defined on
and made by the master server. Something like distributed-generic-host and
distributed-generic-service. So to draw it out on paper it would look like:
master-server
|--objects
| |-distributed-generic-host (active_checks_enabled 0
notifications_enabled 1)
| |-distributed-generic-service (active_checks_enabled 0
notifications_enabled 1)
|
\_distributed_objects (synced between the two servers)
distributed-server
|--objects
| |-distributed-generic-host (active_checks_enabled
1 notifications_enabled 0)
| |-distributed-generic-service (active_checks_enabled
1 notifications_enabled 0)
|
\_distributed_objects (synced between the two servers)
Of course, there are other ways of accomplishing this as well. This is just
a fairly basic one.
>
> If I have a service that sends a check to the master server that is not
> pre-defined on the master server, it will ignore it and the logs will just
> say it ignored it because the service was not defined. Same if I don’t have
> a host pre-defined on the master server.
>
>
>
> I am alright with creating just a host-file to define an IP and a name +
> alias for a host, but having to redefine upto 20 services for a host with
> check_dummy ,et.c. seems a bit unnecessary.
>
As I mentioned, you can use the same object configurations in both places
without needing to fully redefine any of the hosts or services. You just
create the host and services under the folder you keep in sync and have them
inherit from the appropriate distributed template so each server does the
right thing and you are good to go.
>
>
> Is it possible to somehow configure Icinga to accept any/all hosts and
> services that comes through external commands or will there be a future
> release for this function?
>
No, if the server doesn't know anything about the host/service it is
ignored. It's the safest thing to do.
I can't speak to future plans, but I would be surprised if it is even being
considered as there are plenty of ways to setup distributed monitoring
without exposing the server to potential attacks/abuse.
I hope this helps,
Matthew
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
icinga-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/icinga-users
