[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] How to split checks between pages?
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] How to split checks between pages?
- From: Henrik =?unknown-8bit?q?St=C3=B8rner?= <henrik (at) hswn.dk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:03:05 +0100
- References: <0F1BC5A8E4136541B8E1AFD72E123BEC0395E012 (at) GBOEXCH001.ad.minjus.nl>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 08:46:41AM +0100, Kip, D. - GDI/SNB wrote:
> We are trying to split up the monitoring of several thing between the
> administration groups that are responsible for the specific parts being
> monitored. Splitting between UNIX servers, SAN enclosures and network
> components is pretty easy, so we have different pages for UNIX servers,
> SAN enclosures and network components.
>
> But the challenge arises when we want our Database admins and our
> Application admins to have pages for their own checks. I want
> connection, SSH-daemon processes and system disks to be displayed and
> monitored by UNIX admins, oracle processes and oracle disks monitored by
> DBA, application processes and application disks by Application admins.
>
> Preferably on different pages with different logins to access them.
The simplest way of doing that is to have the hosts listed on
multiple pages in bb-hosts (yes, you can do that - just have all
of the network tests defined on one of the host-entries, and leave
the others as "0.0.0.0 HOSTNAME # noconn").
Then you can use the group-only or group-except definitions to
filter out what columns appear for the host.
> PS on a different note: will all traces of BB and hobbit de removed in
> the configuration filenames in the future as well? It seems like it
> might be a bit confusing otherwise...
It is. But it requires some effort to go through all of the references
to the old names, as well as provide some sort of smooth transition to
the new naming scheme. I'm a bit afraid to do that right now, because
it will inevitably break something. So for the 4.x versions I'll stick
with the current filenames, and then in 5.0 there will be the big
rename-everything change.
Regards,
Henrik