HI Holger, thanks for your reply, On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Holger Weiss wrote:
> * Andreas Ericsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-05 10:42]: >> Ivan Fetch wrote: >>> I'm looking for folks doing something like this, or reasons why this >>> might be a particularly bad idea. Perhaps Nagios triggering checks >>> has so much sanity built in, that moving checks to the >>> push-to-Nagios model is a bad idea? > > We use NSCA for a large number of service checks (we don't use NRPE) and > it works just fine for us. > >> It's not a particularly bad idea, but you'll have to accept that you don't >> get nagios' "check max_check_attempts times before sending alerts" logic, >> unless you implement it yourself. > > You do get that logic, you can specify max_check_attempts just as for > active checks. You just don't get a retry_check_interval different from > the normal_check_interval unless you implement it yourself. For us, > that's not a problem, as we don't want a different retry_check_interval > anyway (for most checks, we submit check results once a minute). But if > you rely on this Nagios feature, that's a real drawback of NSCA, yes. Good point. We do use retry_check_interval in some cases, but it's not strictly necessary. If a "it's fixed" state and notification are important enough, and desired before the next natural check, an admin could always run the passive check manually. Thanks again, Ivan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ 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