[Check_mk (english)] Parenting hosts and alerts.... perhaps I am missing something.
schulte.marcel at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 12:38:41 CEST 2016
right, if parent is detected down the host should be unreachable.
Additionally to Tom's advice with event types in notifications you could do
this to prevent the host down detection before the router's:
* by default max check attempts is 1 so state immediately changes HARD
state and gets notified
* if the router's check attempts for host check is 1 set the host's one to
a higher value (e.g. 2) so that it changes to HARD later
Thomas Wittmann <tom.teel at gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 29. Juli 2016 11:28:
> Have a look into your notification rule(s). For what reasons does your
> site send notifications?
> 2016-07-29 1:21 GMT+02:00 Mike Wilson <uce.mikew at gmail.com>:
>> I've got a router VM that controls another VMs connectivity. So,
>> routerVM1 is the parent of vmHostUser1. When routerVM1 is "down"
>> vmHostUser1 should NOT alert also correct (when routerVM1 is down
>> connectivity to vmHostUser1 is gone so it's down/unresponsive)?
>> Right now I still get alerts when both are down. I thought perhaps it was
>> because vmHostUser1 would get polled first before the routerVM1 so I added
>> in a "Delay host notification" for the vmHostUser hosts but it doesn't seem
>> to help.
>> Is there a method that could resolve this type of issue? Am I just not
>> understanding parenting correctly?
>> checkmk-en mailing list
>> checkmk-en at lists.mathias-kettner.de
> checkmk-en mailing list
> checkmk-en at lists.mathias-kettner.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the checkmk-en