Kevin Freels schrieb:
I need to upgrade our current version from 1.2 to the latest version
(3.0). There's info in the 3.0 documentation for going from 2.x to 3.0,
but not from 1.x, and the 2.x docs don't even speak of upgrading from
1.x.
So I was wondering if anyone else has done this, i.e., gone from 1.x to
3.0 in one fell swoop. It would be a pain to have to upgrade in two
steps from 1.x = 2.0 = 3.0, but I'm willing do it if I have to.
However, as I said, there's no info for 1.x = 2.0 that I could find, so
even that's a questionable proposition.
What is involved with going from 1.x to 3.0 directly in one jump? Or is
this one of those better to start off clean scenarios?
Hi Kevin,
I recognized, that migrating from 2.10 to 3.0 ended in 4000 unwanted
mails over the weekend ... ;-) (Due to a strange notification
configuration.) Well, I inherited the old system, and recognized, that
it made more sense for me, to start with monitoring some basic systems
in 3.0 and getting used to the new system first (since I am quite new to
nagios) and then integrating some of the old config-files (host-cfgs).
This scenario worked pretty well for me. I don't know how much the
config-format has changed since 1.x, maybe you don't have to write
everything anew. (My luck was, that we almost exclusivly monitor the
up-down-state of 1100 switches and routers, no fancy checks involved.)
In the process of upgrading, I used the preflight-check a lot, and when
the check-script didn't complain, I restartet or reloaded nagios.
How many hosts or services are you monitoring? Do you just use standard
plugins?
I wish you the best of luck however.
Greetz, Marcus
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
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
