check_ping vs. check_icmp?

[Andrew Laden]

Symlink doesn't help.

If I understand the check_host portion of the logic. It will return up on
the first packet receieved, However if no packets are coming back it still
has to wait the full timeout....

 # time ./check_fping -H em1.dra.tudor.com
FPING CRITICAL - em1.dra.tudor.com (loss=100% )|loss=100%;;;0;100
    0.53s real     0.00s user     0.00s system
# time ./check_host -H em1.dra.tudor.com
em1.dra.tudor.com is DOWN - rta: nan, lost 100%|pkt=6;5;5;5;5
pl=100%;95;100;;
   10.01s real     0.00s user     0.00s system

Even with -n 1
# time ./check_host -H em1.dra.tudor.com -n 1 
em1.dra.tudor.com is DOWN - rta: nan, lost 100%|pkt=2;1;1;1;1
pl=100%;95;100;;
    2.31s real     0.00s user     0.00s system

-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Rouillard [mailto:rouilj at cs.umb.edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 2:16 PM
To: nagios-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] check_ping vs. check_icmp? 

In message <56EAA5BC64E6C34F8C9EE6725D4A2DFA01AA1AFF at tudor.com>,
Andrew Laden writes:
>How does using check_icmp compare to using check_fping?

You missed part of the message. Make a symbolic link to check_icmp called
check_host and execute check_host. Now it's very fast.

>It seems that check_fping will return a down answer much faster. Since 
>host checks are most often run when the host is down, that seems to be 
>the performance that we are concerned with.

This still applies.

># time ./check_fping -H em1.dra.tudor.com FPING CRITICAL - 
>em1.dra.tudor.com (loss=100% )|loss=100%;;;0;100
>    0.52s real     0.00s user     0.01s system
># time ./check_icmp  -H em1.dra.tudor.com CRITICAL - em1.dra.tudor.com: 
>rta nan, lost 100%|rta=0.000ms;200.000;500.000;0; pl=100%;40;80;;
>    2.96s real     0.00s user     0.00s system

Sorry, DNS can't resolve em1.dra.tudor.com or I'd show you how much faster
it is in host mode 8-).

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nate Carlson [mailto:nagios at natecarlson.com]
>To: Andreas Ericsson
>Subject: Re: [Nagios-users] check_ping vs. check_icmp?
>
>On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>> check_ping executes the external command ping, while check_icmp does 
>> its own fiddling with the ICMP protocol. As a result, check_icmp is 
>> faster, smarter and requires less resources to run.
>>
>> check_icmp can also be used in check_host mode (create a symlink 
>> check_host -> check_icmp and execute check_host) which runs extremely
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> quickly to determine if a host is up whenever a service check fails.

				-- rouilj
John Rouillard
===========================================================================
My employers don't acknowledge my existence much less my opinions.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
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


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
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