Le 04/05/2012 13:30, Andreas Ericsson a écrit : > On 05/04/2012 12:16 PM, Paul Ezvan wrote: > >> What is your point of view about the above proposition ? >> > > That, from a practical perspective, Nagios is doing the Right > Thing(tm) > already. Avoiding false positives is almost as important as catching > all true negatives, and adding soft-state logic to this would mean we > send one false positive for each failing host that happens to have a > service-check occur after the soft state but before the hard state.
I don't understand your point, the current logic can generate a false positive for example by generating a hard non-ok state for a service just before a soft recovery happens for the associated host. For example if a user want to reduce the number of false positive by increasing max_check_attempts it won't have any effect on avoiding hard non-ok state for services on soft down host. I think that adding this king of logic would reduce false positive instead, wouldn't it ? Cheers, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ 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
