nagios host limits

[Marc Powell]

On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Conor Shovlin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I installed a ubuntu server and installed nagios to test our  
> configuration on a new version of linux other than Fedora
>
> We have the same problem in that we cannot add more than 226 hosts  
> and we get the below error
>
> Processing object config file '/usr/local/nagios/etc/objects/ 
> xxxx.cfg'...
> Error: Template 'linux-server' specified in host definition could  
> not be not found (config file '/usr/local/nagios/etc/objects/ 
> xxxxhosts.cfg', starting on line 78)
>    Error processing object config files!

> We are running a single monitoring server. Does this mean we are  
> going to have to look at our overall architecture and look at  
> distributed monitoring or similar?

No, you don't need to. A single install of nagios can monitor  
thousands of hosts and services (providing the hardware resources are  
there).

>
> Does anyone have any experience of this type of issue?

You've either encountered a never-before-seen bug or you have a  
genuine error in your configuration files. Please post the template  
definition and a host definition that references it. Please post an  
'ls -l' of the config files and the results of 'egrep "^cfg_" /usr/ 
local/nagios/etc/nagios.cfg'.

Also try adding a dummy host in the same file that you have the  
template defined --

define host{
         use                     linux-server           ; Name of host  
template to use
         host_name               test-host
         alias                   test-host
         address                 1.1.1.1
         contact_groups  nobody
         }

--
Marc


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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