Everything works! But I want more!

[Tedman Eng]

I propose that your lowly "unmonitorable" switch/hub/etc CAN in fact be
monitored.

Presumably, you have 2 or more devices connected to said hub.

For the host check, well it doesn't have an IP address, so we'll use the
127.0.0.1. and check_ok as previously mentioned.

For the service check, what service does this hub provide?  It provides link
and interconnectivity.  
There are 2 ways to test this.
1) Create a plugin that checks a directly connected server's link status.
If the switch is off, the server's interface touching the hub will register
"no link", which nagios can alarm on.
2) Create a plugin that checks ping between two directly connected devices
on the hub(make sure they can't/won't route around it though)

Granted, your monitoring is dependant on the intermediate server, but that
in itself is not unusual for Nagios setups.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Hyde [mailto:bhyde at pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:55 AM
To: nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] Everything works! But I want more!


On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Mark D. Nagel wrote:
> Daniel maher wrote:
>
>> I think that what he's looking for is a way to represent 
>> non-monitorable (I'm inventing words now) objects in the 
>> automatically generated network map.  This is a neat idea; for 
>> example, I'd /love/ to be able to put a hub in that map, and have 
>> things hang off of it visually, but since there's no way to 
>> intelligently put such an object into the Nagios conf (that I'm aware 
>> of), the map remains topologically inaccurate.
>>
>> To put it another way, I don't want to monitor the hub - I just want 
>> to /see/ it placed accurately in the map. :)
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
> Ya mean, like this?
>
> define host {
>    use                         generic-host
>    check_command               check_ok
>    max_check_attempts          1
>    notification_interval       60
>    notification_period         never
>    notification_options        n
>    host_name                   some-hub
>    alias                       Some Unmanaged Hub
>    address                     127.0.0.1
>    parents                     parent-host
> }
>
> The check_ok command is simply a call to 'check_dummy OK'.  You can 
> then use this as a parent for whatever devices are behind it, but it 
> itself will always appear up.

That's only marginally different than what I was doing and I still get 
a "Pending" label in my status map for my equivalent of some-hub.  I 
guess my real question boils down to: "What is considered the 'right' 
way to represent objects in my status map that can not be actively or 
passively monitored."

Possibly the answer is the above and I should just learn to think of  
the "Pending" label as denoting that no useful info is available for 
this component.

  - ben



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
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


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
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