On 17 August 2010 09:50, Robert Jackson <r...@walkermartyn.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the reply Jim, > > I take it I'm looking at duplicating hosts and services if I choose not > to go down the route of the switches sending traps (just seems like more > work I can do without)? I was kind of thinking the switches would be > parents of the ports which in turn would be parents of the network > devices (servers, pc's printers etc). That way if a port went down for > instance, I would only get alerts for the port and not for the services > of the device attached to that port. Seem logical?
That's one way of doing it. Personally I think it's overkill to monitor individual switch ports for each server, although there are always going to be some cases when it's useful to do so. For ordinary single-homed hosts, if the switch port is down the host check for the server will fail anyway - I'm not sure it helps a great deal then to monitor the individual switch port. It's all horses for courses though - ultimately it's for you to decide what is important to you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ 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
