Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote:
>> Here is a tcpdump of check_mk pinging...
>>
>> 11:29:24.042801 IP 10.0.0.4 > adsl-79.dacor.net: ICMP echo request, id
>> 58673, seq 0, length 64
>> 11:29:24.043603 IP adsl-79.dacor.net > 10.0.0.4: ICMP echo reply, id 58673,
>> seq 0, length 64
>> 11:29:24.043768 IP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14/10/09 11:30 AM, Joe Konecny wrote:
>
> Here is a tcpdump of plain Nagios pinging...
>
> 11:23:50.328519 IP 10.0.0.4 > adsl-79.dacor.net: ICMP echo request, id 18478,
> seq 1, length 64
> 11:23:50.329365 IP adsl-79.dacor.net > 10.0.0.4: ICMP ec
Joe Konecny wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 3:36 PM, Marc Powell wrote:
>
>
>> After taking a peek at the code, I do believe that it really sent out
>> 5 ICMP_ECHO requests and only received the first one back. You should
>> be able to verify this with wireshark.
>>
>
> Yes that is what wireshark se
On 10/14/2009 3:36 PM, Marc Powell wrote:
> After taking a peek at the code, I do believe that it really sent out
> 5 ICMP_ECHO requests and only received the first one back. You should
> be able to verify this with wireshark.
Yes that is what wireshark seemed to prove on one of my earlier posts.
On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Joe Konecny wrote:
> The output is below. Also I just installed Nagios on a different
> machine and get the same results.
>
> r...@3px:~# /usr/local/nagios/libexec/check_icmp -v -v 70.62.24.79
> ttl set to 64
> Setting alarm timeout to 10 seconds
> packets: 5, targe
On 10/14/2009 2:24 PM, Marc Powell wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joe Konecny wrote:
>
>> I did some testing on the command line and check_icmp fails
>> every time if -n> 1. So this...
>>
>> check_icmp -n 1 70.62.24.79
>>
>> ...works.
>>
>> To me it looks like a bug in check_icmp.
>
> N
On Oct 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joe Konecny wrote:
> I did some testing on the command line and check_icmp fails
> every time if -n > 1. So this...
>
> check_icmp -n 1 70.62.24.79
>
> ...works.
>
> To me it looks like a bug in check_icmp.
Not impossible but that would be surprising. check_icmp is
On Oct 14, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Joe Konecny wrote:
> It looks like Nagios is using...
>
> check_ping!200.0,20%!600.0,60%
>
> and check_mk is using
>
> /usr/local/nagios/libexec/check_icmp $HOSTADDRESS$
>
>
> ...anyone know what the difference is here?
check_ping is a wrapper for /bin/ping. It tell
On 10/14/2009 1:28 PM, Joe Konecny wrote:
>> What are the corresponding command{} definitions? How are they
>> different?
>>
>
> It looks like Nagios is using...
>
> check_ping!200.0,20%!600.0,60%
>
> and check_mk is using
>
> /usr/local/nagios/libexec/check_icmp $HOSTADDRESS$
>
>
> ...anyone know
On 10/14/2009 11:51 AM, Marc Powell wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Joe Konecny wrote:
>
>> The question is why there is 80& packet loss showing in check_mk
>> and nagios ping there is 0% packet loss. Always.
>
>
> Yes, certainly. This is the key.
>
>> Here is a tcpdump of plain Nagios p
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Joe Konecny wrote:
> The question is why there is 80& packet loss showing in check_mk
> and nagios ping there is 0% packet loss. Always.
Yes, certainly. This is the key.
> Here is a tcpdump of plain Nagios pinging...
What does the host definition for this look l
On 10/14/2009 10:54 AM, Martin Melin wrote:
> The host shows as down because the check_command for the host is
> CRITICAL. Given the performance info you pasted, this makes sense, since
> the check_command looks like a normal check_ping and you seem to have
> 80% packet loss from your Nagios host t
The host shows as down because the check_command for the host is CRITICAL.
Given the performance info you pasted, this makes sense, since the
check_command looks like a normal check_ping and you seem to have 80% packet
loss from your Nagios host to 70.62.24.79
If you'd like the host to show as up,
I configured a host with check_mk and it is monitoring 13 services.
All of the 13 services are OK. The host shows as down however and
I can find no reason for it. I spoke with Mathias Kettner author
of check_mk and he claims that it is not check_mk that is the
problem. I configured a host in Nag
14 matches
Mail list logo
