Thanks for the input guys assign where host.name in [ “h1”, “h2" ]
assigning it this way looks clean and yeah its gonna be expensive. Will go ahead with this approach and try to keep the usage of the above to the minimum. At the moment this feels like the best available approach. WIll ping back if I get anything to add to this. On 21 December 2017 at 13:35, Michael Friedrich < michael.friedr...@icinga.com> wrote: > > > > On 21. Dec 2017, at 09:02, Joosten, Markus <markus.joos...@plumbe.de> > wrote: > > > > Am 2017-12-21 04:20, schrieb Jayapandian Ponraj: > >> Thanks for the reply > >> We do heavily use apply rules based on host variables and for hostgroup > definitions, but once in a while we come across a service which is spread > across 2 or 3 hosts which don't share anything in common. We can go ahead > add separate service definition for each of them(not preferred) or write an > apply rule with a reflex matching those specific hosts. > >> Adding plain service definition for a single host and switching over to > apply rules when 2 or 3 hosts are involved feels counter-intuitive. Since > service definitions will be added by many teams would like to keep it > simple.. > >> So need a simple and elegant solution keeping in mind the common > pitfalls. > >> https://www.icinga.com/2016/04/28/avoiding-common- > pitfalls-with-apply-rules/ > >> So idea is to keep it simple and avoid the pitfalls and performance > issues. > > Hi there, > > I'd say there are at least a few ways to keep it simple and achieve your > solution. > > > > Probably my preferred solution would be to use an explicit assign > statement within your apply rule for every host: > > > > assign where host.name == "host1" > > assign where host.name == "host2" > > assign where host.name == “host3" > > Keep in mind that each assign where expression is evaluated on all host > objects. This is rather expensive compared to just one logical expression > which combines the conditions with &&. > > Furthermore it can be easily made more readable using the in operator and > array notation. > > assign where host.name in [ “h1”, “h2" ] > > Still, I’d suggest to use more generic patterns, as hostnames may be > changed and modifying the apply rules later on is cumbersome. > > Kind regards, > Michael > > > > > Another possibility is to use a host group for these hosts, but to me > this seems counter-intuitive as it groups hosts together which just share a > service. > > > > Regards, > > Markus > > _______________________________________________ > > icinga-users mailing list > > icinga-users@lists.icinga.org > > https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users > > _______________________________________________ > icinga-users mailing list > icinga-users@lists.icinga.org > https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users >
_______________________________________________ icinga-users mailing list icinga-users@lists.icinga.org https://lists.icinga.org/mailman/listinfo/icinga-users
