Hi, > On 3. Aug 2017, at 12:32, Johannes Oettl <joe...@zid.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 08/02/2017 03:46 PM, Michael Friedrich wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> On 2. Aug 2017, at 10:08, Johannes Oettl <joe...@zid.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I want to switch to icinga2, and I have a lot of check_mk based snmp-checks. >>> I have 1 active snmp check per host, and I submit the results as passive >>> checks >>> to the core. Right now I submit the check results to the core via >>> checkresult spool dir. >> I would suggest switching to the REST API and rely on https remotely, >> process-check-result is the action you are looking for. I wouldn’t go the >> route with command pipe or spool dir. > If I can submit over 800 checkresults at once, I am happy :)
There’s a feature request for that: https://github.com/Icinga/icinga2/issues/3553 - haven’t looked deeper into it, since each check result would need a specified object name, without any pre-filtering. You could comment on the issue with your ideas. The spool dir thingy still exists for migration reasons: https://www.icinga.com/docs/icinga2/latest/doc/09-object-types/#checkresultreader It doesn’t hurt, but isn’t super cool in performance. (guess we wrapped our head too much about possible migrations, not many users actually use that, aka report bugs) >> >>> Is this possible in Icinga2? What I must modify in my plugin? On a cisco >>> wireless >>> lan controller I have over 800 passive checks. >> Not sure which plugin you’re using. AFAIK checkmk uses their own check >> plugins which are executed on the master, sending back the check results to >> the core. > wrote my own small plugin in python with easysnmp to get rid of all other > check_mk stuff. > I like the concept of only one snmp check per host, but not the other stuff. Yep, that’s what I liked too back in the days. Nowadays the other stuff is a full blown monster which is partially open core, and it is tremendously hard to follow development or open issues/send patches (different story). > Customizing checkmk was not funny, and I don't want do it again. >> Never tried to incorporate checkmk with Icinga 2, and I personally wouldn’t >> bother to do so. Look for existing check plugins such as check_nwc_health or >> similar and kill checkmk away. > > I will test check_nwc_health. There might be other options too. I’ve kept the Manubulon plugins over at my Github repo, but I doubt they work well on a big fat Catalyst. https://exchange.icinga.com/ might be of help too. Kind regards, Michael _______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list icinga-users@lists.icinga.org https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
