Notifications of Children

[Marc Powell]

On Dec 18, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Sam Stelfox wrote:

> After searching both google and to the extent I was able to the  
> archive
> (it kept timing out when I'd run a search). I'm asking these two
> questions to the list.

Thanks for researching first!

> It's my understanding that if nagios can not talk to a service, ...

Correct.

> I turned off unreachable notifications, but nagios thinks that some of
> the children are in a "down" state while a couple of them say  
> "unreachable".
>
> Why does nagios consider some "down" and some "unreachable" (they are
> all using the same template only thing different is there name's and
> addresses and the parents have the same template as well).

What is the state of the immediate parent of a 'down' host? Are you  
sure it's parent is what you think it is? I would say that the 'down'  
host either has no parent or the parent's status is 'ok', or was at  
the time the on-demand check happened. If you're using nagios-3,  
cached host checks could certainly be at play here --

http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/cachedchecks.html

> Why does nagios still send notifications for the children?

For which, down or unreachable? Based on your disabling of unreachable  
notifications, you should not receive those. You may receive down  
notifications if you've elected to receive those.

--
Marc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.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