Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Passive checks and check_period ...

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    France - Valence
    Posts
    91

    Passive checks and check_period ...

    Hi,
    it seems that Shinken ignores the check_period parameter for passive hosts and services checks ... is there any solution for that passively submitted checks are ignored for certain period of time ?

    BR, Fred.

  2. #2
    Shinken project leader
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Bordeaux (France)
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: Passive checks and check_period ...

    Nop, passive is toally under taht sender responsability sorry
    No direct support by personal message. Please open a thread so everyone can see the solution

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    France - Valence
    Posts
    91

    Re: Passive checks and check_period ...

    I think that it should be interesting il Shinken was able to take care about check_period ... even if a new parameter is necessary. What do you think about it ?

  4. #4
    Shinken project leader
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Bordeaux (France)
    Posts
    2,131

    Re: Passive checks and check_period ...

    For passive? not sure that getting the responsability for cheduling is a good idea, after all, the last state is always better than the old one. If you don't want notification, look at first_notification_delay parameter
    No direct support by personal message. Please open a thread so everyone can see the solution

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1
    The checking and the check period is the way to get the accurate set of the working condition with the probably best idea. The thread here is for the movement of the storm is studymoose reliable for the reliable way of making passive check for time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •