[Nagios-users] Need Help with Formatting URL for Host/Service Acknowledgment
Hello, I'm trying to include a URL in my alert emails that will allow the user to acknowledge the alert by clicking on the URL. I'm having trouble with the formatting so that the host and service will be passed to cmd.cgi correctly. When I define notes_url as follows the '' and spaces in the service description don't translate to a proper url format. Does anyone know how can translate this information valid URL to be included into my alert emails? notes_url http://example.com/nagios/cgi-bin/cmd.cgi?cmd_typ=34host=$HOSTNAME$service=$SERVICEDESC$ Here is an example of an expected output: http://example.com/nagios/cgi-bin/cmd.cgi?cmd_typ=34host=host.example.comservice=SSH%20Check Here is an example of the actual output: http://example.com/nagios/cgi-bin/cmd.cgi?cmd_typ=34host=host.example.comservice=SSH%2BCheckhttp://monitor.chpc.utah.edu/nagios/cgi-bin/cmd.cgi?cmd_typ=34host=hypno-hustler.chpc.utah.eduservice=SSH%2BCheck%2BIPv4 As you can see the '' is missing and the space in 'SSH Check' is coded as %2B not %20. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial. Pricing starts from $795 for 25 servers or applications! http://p.sf.net/sfu/zoho_dev2dev_nov___ 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
[Nagios-users] Storing Configuration Files in Database
I'm exploring using NDOUtils or another database back-end with Nagios, but I don't think I understand how they work. After reading the NDOUtils documentation I noticed that it said that the Nagios daemon doesn't read the configuration information that is stored in the database. Is there something out there I can use with Nagios that will allow the daemon to read the configurations from a database and allow me to get rid of the flat configuration files? -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- 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
Re: [Nagios-users] specific service alert for a specific user
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Kaushal Shriyan kaushalshri...@gmail.comwrote:-- Hi, is there a way to trigger email/sms alert for a specific service to a specific user. for example host a has 6 services, out of 6 services, can i trigger email/sms alert for service 5 to user john for example? Regards Kaushal Kaushal, You can create a contact group called John that has a contact named John as it's only member. Then in the configuration you would specify the alert groups for each service separated by a comma. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Nagios and IPv6
I saw in the email thread about you asking if you need to use a patch for Nagios to use IPv6. The answer to your question is no. If you have a IPv6 only host you can use the IPv6 address in the address field. You need to type the entire IPv6 address out, because Nagios doesn’t handle the double colon (::) shorthand very well. You'll need to update your commands to use the IPv6 option such as specifying the -6 flag on some of the checks. If you have a dual stack host with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses you'll need to use a custom variable in order to specify a IPv6 address. Custom variables are created by using the underscore (_) before the variable name. For example I use _address6 for IPv6 addresses in my configuration files for the host I monitor. In my commands config file I reference the custom variable like so: $_HOSTADDRESS6$. I hope this helps. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- 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
Re: [Nagios-users] NRPE and IPv6
There is no need to patch Nagios to support and IPv6 address variable. You can just use a custom object variable. In fact this is the preferred way to do it. http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/customobjectvars.html -- Robert V. Bolton www.robertvbolton.com -- Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Check_Ping plugin not Incrementing Check Attempt Value
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Claudio Kuenzler c...@claudiokuenzler.comwrote: But what's strange in your log are also the missing SOFT states, where are they? You're correct, I'm missing some of the SOFT states. I'm going to have to do some more testing before I can say for sure if there is a bug in either Nagios of the check_ping plugin. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d___ 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
[Nagios-users] Check_Ping plugin not Incrementing Check Attempt Value
Over the weekend I had a weird event happen in my monitoring set. I have a host that has an Infiniband interface, and we are running the IP protocol over Infiniband, while using the check_ping plugin to verify network connectivity. This weekend our Ethernet to Infiniband gateway went down and the check_ping plugin reported that state as CRITICAL, however the it didn't increment the check attempt value, and thus a notification wasn't sent out since the max check attempts threshold was never reached. I've included some of the output of /var/log/messages that indicates the problem. Has anyone else seen this issue? As a side note I've since changed my service check to use check_icmp instead of check_ping. Jan 28 17:12:12 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:13:12 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:14:12 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:15:12 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:42:12 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:43:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:44:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:47:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:48:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:49:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 17:50:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:31:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:32:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:33:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:42:23 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:43:23 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:44:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) Jan 28 18:45:22 monitor nagios: SERVICE ALERT: hamrock.chpc.utah.edu;IPv4 IPoIB Ping Check;CRITICAL;HARD;1;CRITICAL - Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Check_Ping plugin not Incrementing Check Attempt Value
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Claudio Kuenzler c...@claudiokuenzler.comwrote: It looks like you use parent-child-relationships? That would explain why it's written Host Unreachable (172.21.10.170) instead of Host Down. Was the parent of this host down as well? In this case, Nagios 'knows' that it doesn't make sense to continue checks on the child hosts. This host is duel homed using both Ethernet and Infiniband networks. To Nagios's point of view the parent of this host is the Ethernet switch that it is plugged into, which didn't go down at all during this outage. Host Unreachable is a valid ICMP code, so that's why the plugin reported this error, not because of any Nagios parent/child relationship. So in this situation Nagios should have increased the check attempts count by one until the max check attempts threshold was reached, thus sending out a service notification. Is this an error in Nagios or the check_ping plugin. I'm using Nagios v3.2.3 and check_ping v1.4.15 by the way. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Dualstack monitoring best practice
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: Hi, i am thinking about the monitoring with dualstack targets/hosts. I'd expect all our hosts and services to be dual stacked or at least single stacked services to be the exception. So adding a v6 host for all v4 hosts seems so odd. I was thinking about adding some _v6address variable to all host definitions and defining v6 services using host HOSTADDRESS but _HOSTV6ADDRESS. In the end it would even be more natural to check_ping to check both address families if available and go to CRITICAL if one of them fails. In the end v6 should be a equivalent member of the family. Whats the preferred way people have chosen and what where the pitfalls? Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de Hi Flo, At work we have started to go dualstack with all of our servers. Currently our web servers are 100% dualstack so most of our monitoring dualstack experience is based off of these servers. We have noticed that IPv4 connectivity is more important than IPv6 since a client is more likely to have an IPv4 address than IPv6, also if a web client accesses a server over IPv6 and the server doesn't respond on IPv6 it will timeout and fall back to IPv4. I suggest that you monitor these ping check separately so that you'll be able to troubleshoot where the problem is on the IPv4 side of the IPv6 side. If you really want to monitor these together I would look into clustering these two ping checks and set a warning if one of these fails. Here is the info about check_clusterhttp://nagiosplugins.org/man/check_cluster -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] Dualstack monitoring best practice
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Michael Friedrich michael.friedr...@univie.ac.at wrote: there's a patch for nagios around, adding address6 as host attribute. even if there are custom variables, it's more intentional for keeping the systems dualstacked in the future by adding that. You don't need to add the patch to add an address6 variable, just use a Custom Object Variablehttp://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/customobjectvars.html. I use to run Nagios with patch that added the address6 variable, but it ended up screwing me up in the long run. -- *Robert V. Bolton* Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox___ 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
[Nagios-users] False Positive Results for check_ping
I'm seeing a lot of false positive results from one of the host I'm monitoring with the check_ping plugin. Looking at the logs I see various degrees of packet lost for this host, but when a run the standard ping from the command line don't have any packet loss. Does anyone have any insight about this? --- Section From Log File --- Aug 20 08:55:29 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.57 ms Aug 20 08:55:35 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.57 ms Aug 20 08:56:36 monitor nsca[25608]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms' Aug 20 08:56:38 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms Aug 20 08:56:44 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms Aug 20 08:57:44 monitor nsca[27186]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms' Aug 20 08:57:48 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms Aug 20 08:57:53 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms Aug 20 08:58:14 monitor nsca[27765]: HOST CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms' Aug 20 08:58:16 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_HOST_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms Aug 20 08:58:23 monitor nagios: PASSIVE HOST CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms Aug 20 08:58:44 monitor nsca[28875]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms' Aug 20 08:58:49 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:58:53 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:59:46 monitor nsca[30278]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms' Aug 20 08:59:48 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:59:54 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms --- Results From Ping Command --- PING 172.30.0.3 (172.30.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.531 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.563 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.506 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.554 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=0.505 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=0.561 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=0.534 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=0.499 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=0.496 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=10 ttl=255 time=0.554 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=0.512 ms --- 172.30.0.3 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 received, 0% packet loss, time 1ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.496/0.528/0.563/0.035 ms -- Robert V. Bolton Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2___ 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
Re: [Nagios-users] False Positive Results for check_ping
Thanks for the tip Marty. On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Martin Hugo martin_h...@hboe.org wrote: I believe there Is a previous post about a bug in check_ping. Use check_icmp instead. ** ** HTH ** ** Marty ** ** *From:* Robert V. Bolton [mailto:rob...@robertvbolton.com] *Sent:* Saturday, August 20, 2011 12:06 PM *To:* nagios-users@lists.sourceforge.net *Subject:* [Nagios-users] False Positive Results for check_ping ** ** I'm seeing a lot of false positive results from one of the host I'm monitoring with the check_ping plugin. Looking at the logs I see various degrees of packet lost for this host, but when a run the standard ping from the command line don't have any packet loss. Does anyone have any insight about this? --- Section From Log File --- Aug 20 08:55:29 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.57 ms Aug 20 08:55:35 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.57 ms Aug 20 08:56:36 monitor nsca[25608]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms' Aug 20 08:56:38 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms Aug 20 08:56:44 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 37%, RTA = 0.56 ms Aug 20 08:57:44 monitor nsca[27186]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms' Aug 20 08:57:48 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms Aug 20 08:57:53 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 1.19 ms Aug 20 08:58:14 monitor nsca[27765]: HOST CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms' Aug 20 08:58:16 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_HOST_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms Aug 20 08:58:23 monitor nagios: PASSIVE HOST CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.55 ms Aug 20 08:58:44 monitor nsca[28875]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms' Aug 20 08:58:49 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:58:53 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 50%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:59:46 monitor nsca[30278]: SERVICE CHECK - Host Name: 'gw-ssb-moria', Service Description: 'Ping Check IPv4', Return Code: '0', Output: 'PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms' Aug 20 08:59:48 monitor nagios: EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_SERVICE_CHECK_RESULT;gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms Aug 20 08:59:54 monitor nagios: PASSIVE SERVICE CHECK: gw-ssb-moria;Ping Check IPv4;0;PING OK - Packet loss = 0%, RTA = 0.54 ms --- Results From Ping Command --- PING 172.30.0.3 (172.30.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.531 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.563 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.506 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=0.554 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=0.505 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=0.561 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=0.534 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=0.499 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=0.496 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=10 ttl=255 time=0.554 ms 64 bytes from 172.30.0.3: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=0.512 ms --- 172.30.0.3 ping statistics --- 11 packets transmitted, 11 received, 0% packet loss, time 1ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.496/0.528/0.563/0.035 ms -- Robert V. Bolton Email: rob...@robertvbolton.com Web: http://robertvbolton.com -- Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2 ___ 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
