parents question again

[Matthew Sayler]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 02:51:23PM -0500, Matt Pounsett wrote:
> The perspective of Nagios Server A is that Switch 1 is the parent of Switch 2.
> Nagios Server B's perspective is that Switch 2 is the parent of Switch 1.
> Simply telling each Nagios server which switch they're connected to won't
> adjust the dependancies as you appear to desire.

As far as I'm concerned, the only way to do this properly is to skip
"parent" and define links


A <---> B <---> C
        ^
	|
	|
	|
	v
	D

Hosts and connections (edges) are defined.  Something indicates the edge
that connects nagios to the graph:

A <-x-> B <-y-> C
        ^
	|
	z
	|
	v
	D <-w-> Nagios

Nagios builds a spanning tree over the graph (borrow the aglo from your
favorite CS treatise) and you have instant parent relationships.

One interesting correlary of this approach is that you could define IPs
for (e.g.) B's interface with Z, so that you're always contacting the
IP "closest" to you viz-a-viz your graph.

I can't see a way that any solution not involving biderectional edges
will work.

All of this is much more complicated than the current scheme, though. 

Regards,

Matt Sayler

-- 
/* Matt Sayler    -- Sr. Network Engineer, Speedsite Online
 * (773) 394-9300 -- sayler at speedsite.com */


-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Nagios-users mailing list
Nagios-users at 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