Hi Marco,
I will set this up.
Thanks a lot!
Simon
From: Marco Supino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: May-09-07 1:43 AM
To: Simon Marcil; nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Nagios-users] Distributed Monitoring Web Interface Issue
Hi,
I have the same scenario, and what I did was to enable active checks on
all services, but put check_period to none, so a check is never
executed, except if freshness checking runs it.
Marco.
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon
Marcil
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 02:59
To: nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Nagios-users] Distributed Monitoring Web Interface Issue
I have a distributed monitoring setup. I have several servers reporting
back to a central server. The central server also does a couple checks
but most of it's hosts and services are disabled (because it receives
the info from other servers).
The problem I have is with the web interface. In the Tactical Overview
all the problems reported from distributed servers show up as
"disabled". This means that we can't have a correct listing of Unhandled
Problems. For example, Let's say I have 3 hosts down coming from a
distributed server with 1 that has been acknowledged. I will have the
following:
3 Down
1 Acknowledged
3 Disabled
In this example, is there a way to only list the host which are down and
not acknowledged???
If this wasn't clear let me know and I will clearify.
Simon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
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
