Distributed Nagios Configuration with Passive Checks

[Jeffrey Watts]

If I understand you correctly, are you trying to have your master server
accept passive checks from other Nagios servers and check services and
servers itself?

If so, what I think would be easier (and is the method recommended by the
docs) would be to just set up a second Nagios server (or instance) to run
the checks that the master is currently doing and have the master only
accept passive checks.

The master would have enable_notifications on, execute_service_checks off.
The slaves would have enable_notifications off, execute_service_checks on.

There's more to it than just that, read the following guide for more
information:
http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/distributed.html

Also, if you simply want a unified interface, you might want to look at
Nagios Fusion.  I haven't used it, but it might be what you want.

Good luck,
Jeffrey.
<http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/distributed.html>
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Samuel Kidman <Samuel.Kidman at panres.com>wrote:

> Hello
>
>
>
> I am trying to set up a distributed nagios configuration that will monitor
> n mine-sites. There is a single master server that will accept passive
> checks from all of the mine sites providing a unified view of network status
> throughout the organisation.
>
>
>
> I have set up host groups that represent groups of hosts with similar
> function and have the same service checks ran against them such as switches
> and PLCs. Whenever we get a new device I can just add it to the right host
> group and it gets all of its service checks by being a member of that
> hostgroup.
>
>
>
> My question is how do I disable active checks for the service checks for
> the remote minesites without having to create a separate service check for
> each site? The only thing I’ve been able to think of is using an external
> command at nagios start up that checks all of the services on the master
> server and works out which ones belong to remote sites and then disables
> active checks on each one, but this seems like a messy way.
>
>
> If there was a way to have host group intersections in the hostgroups
> property in service checks I could specify two services and two hostgroups –
> a local and a remote one. The local check applys to its function group AND
> all devices at the head office while the remote check applies to its
> function group AND all remote hosts, however at present I think this
> functionality is unavailable.
>
>
>
> Just looking for some configuration suggestions on how to get this to work.
>
>
>
> *Sam Kidman*
>
> *IT Support Officer*
>
> --------------------------
>
> *T:*        08 9225 0944
>
> * *
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Description: panres]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
> A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
> for your organization - today and in the future.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.monitoring-lists.org/archive/users/attachments/20110321/d9072977/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colocation vs. Managed Hosting
A question and answer guide to determining the best fit
for your organization - today and in the future.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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