Thread: [Shinken-devel] Services Depencies question
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
naparuba
From: François P. <ml...@pi...> - 2011-10-03 13:55:13
|
Hi I can't get services depencies to work, and I don't understand why. I have 2 services on the same host, both are actively checked. When ServiceA is critical, the event handler stops ServiceB, and any check will always be critical. There is no point in checking or sending notifications. So, I have the following servicedepency : define servicedependency{ host_name host1 service_description ServiceA dependent_service_description ServiceB execution_failure_criteria c notification_failure_criteria c } I still have checks and notifications about ServiceB when ServiceA is critical.. And I don't get why.. On the same subject. I have both services on multiple hosts. The wiki page "Time Saving tricks" says I can declare all hosts in host_name directive. But what if I declare something like this : define servicedependency{ hostgroup_name hostgroup1 service_description ServiceA dependent_service_description ServiceB execution_failure_criteria c notification_failure_criteria c } Will serviceB be dependent upon serviceA on the same host, or will it be dependent upon serviceA on any host in hostgroup1. Thanks for the help. François |
From: nap <nap...@gm...> - 2011-10-06 14:22:20
|
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM, François Picot <ml...@pi...> wrote: > Hi > > I can't get services depencies to work, and I don't understand why. > > I have 2 services on the same host, both are actively checked. > When ServiceA is critical, the event handler stops ServiceB, and any > check will always be critical. There is no point in checking or sending > notifications. > > So, I have the following servicedepency : > > define servicedependency{ > host_name host1 > service_description ServiceA > dependent_service_description ServiceB > execution_failure_criteria c > notification_failure_criteria c > } > > I still have checks and notifications about ServiceB when ServiceA is > critical.. And I don't get why.. > Hi, What if : * you remove the execution_failure_criteria line? * define ServiceA in the service_dependencies property of the service A? > > > On the same subject. > I have both services on multiple hosts. The wiki page "Time Saving > tricks" says I can declare all hosts in host_name directive. > But what if I declare something like this : > define servicedependency{ > hostgroup_name hostgroup1 > service_description ServiceA > dependent_service_description ServiceB > execution_failure_criteria c > notification_failure_criteria c > } > > Will serviceB be dependent upon serviceA on the same host, or will it be > dependent upon serviceA on any host in hostgroup1. > It will be the first one :) Regards, Jean > > Thanks for the help. > François > |
From: François P. <ml...@pi...> - 2011-10-06 16:23:54
|
Hi! I'm still playing with depencies and escalations, without luck. A new bug I found is that "notification_failure_criteria" doesn't seems to have any effect. With 2 dummy tests, and this dependency : define servicedependency{ host_name monit service_description test1 dependent_service_description test2 execution_failure_criteria o notification_failure_criteria o } If both test1 and test2 are critical, ant test1 goes OK, test2 is checked one last time (it should'nt but it's not too bad), but notifications for test2 keep getting sent. And if test2 goes OK, as it isn't checked anymore, it isn't detected, ant notifications are still sent. But as you asked in bug #317, I'll try the latest git version before anything. I'm still in 0.6.5, and that might explain a lot. Le 06/10/2011 16:22, nap a écrit : > Hi, > > What if : > * you remove the execution_failure_criteria line? > * define ServiceA in the service_dependencies property of the service A? I'll try that if upgrading isn't enough. > > Will serviceB be dependent upon serviceA on the same host, or will it be > > dependent upon serviceA on any host in hostgroup1. > > It will be the first one :) OK, that's great. Next question is : how about a service which should run at least on one host? would the following depency do the trick? define servicedependency{ hostgroup_name group1 service_description test dependent_hostgroup_name group1 dependent_service_description test execution_failure_criteria o notification_failure_criteria o } > > Regards, > > > Jean Best regards François |
From: nap <nap...@gm...> - 2011-10-19 12:23:27
|
Hi, Sorry for being long, the 0.8 release took me a lot of time to get done. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 6:23 PM, François Picot <ml...@pi...> wrote: > Hi! > > I'm still playing with depencies and escalations, without luck. > A new bug I found is that "notification_failure_criteria" doesn't seems > to have any effect. > > With 2 dummy tests, and this dependency : > define servicedependency{ > host_name monit > service_description test1 > dependent_service_description test2 > execution_failure_criteria o > notification_failure_criteria o > } > > If both test1 and test2 are critical, ant test1 goes OK, test2 is > checked one last time (it should'nt but it's not too bad), but > notifications for test2 keep getting sent. And if test2 goes OK, as it > isn't checked anymore, it isn't detected, ant notifications are still sent. > Oh, It seems that the "OK" state is not took in the dependency logic I think. I'll wrote a test case for it, but it sounds like a bug because when we wrote the dependency logic, it was in ming the "bad cases", not the good ones. > But as you asked in bug #317, I'll try the latest git version before > anything. I'm still in 0.6.5, and that might explain a lot. > > Le 06/10/2011 16:22, nap a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > What if : > > * you remove the execution_failure_criteria line? > > * define ServiceA in the service_dependencies property of the service A? > I'll try that if upgrading isn't enough. > > > > Will serviceB be dependent upon serviceA on the same host, or will it > be > > > dependent upon serviceA on any host in hostgroup1. > > > > It will be the first one :) > OK, that's great. > > Next question is : how about a service which should run at least on one > host? would the following depency do the trick? > > define servicedependency{ > hostgroup_name group1 > service_description test > dependent_hostgroup_name group1 > dependent_service_description test > execution_failure_criteria o > notification_failure_criteria o > } > No I don't think so. The group will be just like N dependency in the end, not N*N. Maybe a "business rules" can do the trick with an "OR" rule? Regards, Jean > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Jean > > Best regards > François > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a > definitive record of customers, application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 > _______________________________________________ > Shinken-devel mailing list > Shi...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shinken-devel > |