2009/8/25 Ryan Bowlby <rbowlb...@yahoo.com>:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> We are experiencing issues with Nagios notifications. Apparently when a large 
> amount of services become critical and trigger notifications the system all 
> but stops processing new service check results (passive). The "last check 
> times" in the web interface stop updating until notifications are disabled.
>
> Tailing the nagios.log file during this issue shows mostly notifications and 
> hardly any check results being processed. As soon as I temporarily disable 
> notifications - system wide - the passive check results literally fly off the 
> screen, and all the stale results in the web interface clear up quickly.
>
> How does everyone handle this issue? Obviously the notifications are a 
> bottleneck. Has anyone configured notifications to be dropped in a file or 
> fifo to be processed by an external daemon? Something like OCP daemon if 
> anyone is familiar with it.
>
> Obviously parent child relationships would prove useful in curbing the 
> notifications, but implementation of relationships is a while off (5 D.C.s 
> lot's a data to have to collect). Any suggestions would be greatly 
> appreciated!



If you have set retry_check_interval to a very low value compared with
normal_check_interval, then inevitably Nagios will be working a lot
harder if a lot of hosts are down at the same time.



hth (a bit),

Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to