AW: extended Reporting

[Sand Philipp]

> Sand Philipp wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm using Nagios 2.0 with perfparse for a while to monitor about 450
> > Hosts and 2500 Services. Now we need more functionality with
> > Reporting, and I wonder, if maybe anyone has done that before...
> >
> > Following two scenarios:
> >
> > 1. One of our customers has about 200 Hosts which are monitored in
> > Nagios, and he wants to have an availability Report of those Hosts
> > once a month. But he only wants to see the Hosts, where we couldn't
> > keep our SLAs ... f.e. when a host was less then 95% available
> > without any scheduled downtimes or something... Would be great if
> > there would be a possibility to have such a report automatically
> > generated once a month, without having someone of or admins look
over
> > the stats each time.
> >
> > 2. We have 3 groups of let's say 10 Services in group A, 5 Hosts in
> > group B and 2 Hosts in group C and our SLA assure, that the State is
> > ok, when 8 Services in group A + 4 Hosts in group B and 1 Host in
> > group C is in OK State. Is there a chance to check such a scenario?
> >

Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Not without needing a strong seditive after trying to implement some
> serious black magic configuration.

:-) First black magic spell found. Point 2 can be handled by playin'
around with the chck_cluster2 plugin ( I love it!! )

Leaves out Point 1 unsolved :-/

Philipp


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4
opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to
win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r 
_______________________________________________
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