You can approach monitoring an IP-less unmanaged switch a few ways: 1) Hang a device with and IP address off the switch. This device's sole purpose would be to provide reliable monitorable status through the switch (ie via ping, embedded web server, etc). Such a device would need to be more reliable than the switch, otherwise you're not monitoring the switch for failure, you're monitoring the IP device for failure.
For suggestions of very small IP devices for this purpose, see this discussion: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/07/2111240 2) Monitor link status of some device connected to the switch. Again, this device is standing in for the switch, so you're actually monitoring the connected device, it's ethernet cable, it's ethernet card, and only that one particular switch port. 3) Create a cluster object (ie. check_cluster) that's tied to numerous hosts behind the switch. If all those hosts are out at the same time, then your cluster object would signal a problem, most likely the switch, but it could be your whole computer room went down too. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:20 PM > To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Nagios-users] switch host definition: no IP > > > i want some advice on if and how i should add an IP-less > switch into my host > definitions. the templates i've found for switches always > have an IP associated > with them, like so: > > define host{ > use generic-host > host_name switch1 > alias Switch #1 > address 192.168.1.230 > check_command check-host-alive > max_check_attempts 10 > notification_interval 60 > notification_period 24x7 > notification_options d,u,r > contact_groups switch-admins > } > > but my switches do not have an IP associated with them, being > setup thusly: > > (firewall)---(switch1)----(mailserver) > 10.9.0.1 | 10.9.0.3 > | > (wifi AP) > 10.9.0.2 > > in this case, would i want to make a host named switch1 and > have it be the > parent of the mailserver and wifi AP machines, or should i > omit the switch1 host > and have firewall be the parent of the two machines behind switch1? > > i would like to be able to detect if the switch has burned > out, not just that > the hosts are both down. perhaps my switch is too crappy? > > thx for reading. > > cheers, > jake > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking > scripting language > that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend > the live webcast > and join the prime developer group breaking into this new > coding territory! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&; dat=121642 _______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ 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
