Possible bug in Nagios 2.12?

[Steven D. Morrey]

<snip>
________________________________________
>From: Andreas Ericsson [ae at op5.se]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:21 PM
>To: Nagios Developers List
>Subject: Re: [Nagios-devel] Possible bug in Nagios 2.12?

Steven D. Morrey wrote:
> >Thats a good point, so the better thing might be to move that check to the end of the event_list and move the even_list right along.
> >I have some experimental code I'm working with.
> >If you put it in above the place where it goes to sleep, it should unblock the queue and let the other checks run.
>

>That's a bad idea, as it would mean checks that can't be
>parallelized are likely to *never* run.
</snip>

I'm not so sure thats a bad thing, at least not in our case.
Say we have 28,000 service checks that need to run, MOST of which can run in parallel, but there are maybe 100 that can't.
Wouldn't it be better to have those checks be pushed to the back of the queue, or even just moved up to the high priority queue, rather than causing a minimum of 100 seconds of check latency, and holding up the works for the rest of the 28,000 checks that still need to run?
Just a thought.

Sincerely,
Steven Morrey


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com