Discussion:
Using salt for icinga/nagios checks instead of NRPE
Tor Hveem
2013-01-05 22:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.

Have a look at:

http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement

Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.

Best regards,
Tor Hveem

--
Thomas S Hatch
2013-01-05 23:03:35 UTC
Permalink
This is fantastic. And a great direction. I have been thinking about a way
to populate monitoring routines from the state tree, this component you
have would tie into this very well! Once you are comfortable with it please
send us a pull req!
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
--
Erik Johnson
2013-01-05 23:11:00 UTC
Permalink
I love this idea as well.
Post by Thomas S Hatch
This is fantastic. And a great direction. I have been thinking about a way
to populate monitoring routines from the state tree, this component you
have would tie into this very well! Once you are comfortable with it please
send us a pull req!
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
--
--
-Erik

"For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to
persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." -- Carl Sagan

--
Tor Hveem
2013-01-05 23:47:10 UTC
Permalink
I have not thought too much about how to solve named args. Can you even use
args using the runner? I guess I don't really need the runner, but it can
potentially make things more secure and clean. Suggestions on how to
proceed?
Post by Thomas S Hatch
This is fantastic. And a great direction. I have been thinking about a way
to populate monitoring routines from the state tree, this component you
have would tie into this very well! Once you are comfortable with it please
send us a pull req!
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
--
--
Arnold Bechtoldt
2013-01-06 12:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, this would be very very cool!
Post by Thomas S Hatch
This is fantastic. And a great direction. I have been thinking about a
way to populate monitoring routines from the state tree, this component
you have would tie into this very well! Once you are comfortable with it
please send us a pull req!
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks
and feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work
to do before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be
used for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
--
--
David Boucha
2013-01-06 03:31:33 UTC
Permalink
This is really awesome!
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
--
Dan Garthwaite
2013-01-06 19:36:19 UTC
Permalink
I've had a similar itch to scratch. I'm using salt to configure
check-mk-agent on minions.

check_mk has already figured out how to template and configure nagios via a
single tag based data file, including auto creation of pnp4nagios graphs.

All that is needed is to keep a pillar of 'roles' to attribute to minions,
and then in check_mk's main.mk file add one line:

minion['id'] + "|".join(minion['roles'])

The piece that would be missing is invoking check-mk-agent on the minions
and returning it over zeromq. Again, check_mk already has this abstracted
out, using a 'datasource program':

http://mathias-kettner.de/checkmk_datasource_programs.html

--
Tor Hveem
2013-01-06 22:41:17 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't mind a read about your full setup, Dan!
Post by Dan Garthwaite
I've had a similar itch to scratch. I'm using salt to configure
check-mk-agent on minions.
check_mk has already figured out how to template and configure nagios via
a single tag based data file, including auto creation of pnp4nagios graphs.
All that is needed is to keep a pillar of 'roles' to attribute to minions,
minion['id'] + "|".join(minion['roles'])
The piece that would be missing is invoking check-mk-agent on the minions
and returning it over zeromq. Again, check_mk already has this abstracted
http://mathias-kettner.de/checkmk_datasource_programs.html
--
--
Corey Quinn
2013-01-06 22:46:20 UTC
Permalink
+1 on that; I'm redesigning a (somewhat broken) monitoring setup now, at the same time as I'm contemplating a full salt rollout.

I'd pitch in for $beverage_of_choice to see what Dan has come up with; I'm not a big fan of reinventing wheels…

-- Corey
Post by Tor Hveem
I wouldn't mind a read about your full setup, Dan!
I've had a similar itch to scratch. I'm using salt to configure check-mk-agent on minions.
check_mk has already figured out how to template and configure nagios via a single tag based data file, including auto creation of pnp4nagios graphs.
minion['id'] + "|".join(minion['roles'])
http://mathias-kettner.de/checkmk_datasource_programs.html
--
--
--
Dan Garthwaite
2013-01-07 16:23:22 UTC
Permalink
I commented before reading the great writeup Tor has put up. Seems I
jumped on his bandwagon, and I apologize. His holistic walk-through of how
to tie into salt's returners, runners, and peer system is just what I
needed and really lacking in the default documentation.

I also have the flu right now. :) The following ramblings may be
medicated.

My post was a synthesis of some of the things I've seen on this list and
what I've already done.

What I have running is icinga configured and maintained by check_mk, which
runs over passwordless ssh to invoke check-mk-agent on minions. Salt
configures all the glue. I'm still manually adding new hosts to check_mk,
but that is just one line. Salt's reactor might be just what I need to
automate this.

The rest of this post will sound like evangelizing check_mk. It does a lot
for you and is hard to pin down a single definition for it. It is a pile o
python that can completely abstract away nagios's objects and templates for
you. I've used nagios for a decade now and will never go back to vim'ing
16 files per host in a complex environment. I guess it's author has gone
to war applying DRY to nagios.

It also consolidates all remote checks (formerly NRPE) to one fork and
connection per host with a simple, single file agent. Here is the output
of a check_mk_agent run: https://gist.github.com/4476003

It also allows you to maintain a normal checks (it calls them legacy
checks) in a single place, and apply these checks via tags (roles).

Here is an example of how check_mk can mesh with a pillar of roles. Say we
put in a pillar that app03 has roles 'mongodb' and 'wsgi_app1'. You can
then use salt to install a LAMP stack + mongodb, and deploy your Paste app.

In check_mk one line needs to be added for a new server, app03:

"app03|ssh|mongodb|python",

It uses the pipe character to add arbitrary tags. All of my hosts have the
ssh tag, which tells check_mk that it is to connect via ssh. ( Here is
where it could be improved to use salt's zeromq connections ). Then it has
mongodb and python tags. Adding these via a jinja snippet should be easy
from the roles in pillar.

The mongodb tag incorporates more checks for this host to remotely verify
the tcp port AND internal checks from the host (status, memory size, number
of connections, etc).

Here is the "legacy check" that is applied to all hosts with the 'mongodb'
tag/role:
legacy_checks += [
( ("check-tcp!-p 31867", "MongoDB", True), ['mongodb'], ALL_HOSTS ),
]

Again, check_mk creates all the hosts, commands, and templates for you with
that one line.

The python tag is magic: I've configured check_mk to inventory only
certain python processes on hosts tagged 'python' and keep track of them.
It auto generates checks for all python processes matching predefined
strings. I've configured 'wsgi', 'beaver', 'salt-minion', and
'supervisor'.

Each of these are a single line in a configuration, for example, learning
to watch 'Paste' pids:
( ['python'], ALL_HOSTS, "Paste", "~.*python .*paster", GRAB_USER, 1, 1,
2, 2 ),

To translate: All hosts with 'python' tag, when inventorying, search for
regex ".*python .*paster" , if present, create a new passive check called
Paste, make sure the UID doesn't change, and set the Warn and Crit levels

... That is a hell of a lot of file edits all over several Nagios objects
and templates. And there is nothing additionally run on the client. The
process list is already delivered via the check_mk_agent.

It even sets up graphing the memory usage, uptime, and number of processes
in pnp4nagios for you.

... it also creates pre-compiled python checks for each host that combine
all the checks for that host for you. Less forking.

I'm going to stop rambling now. I feel like at this point I should say:
"But wait! If you act now, we'll give you TWO check_mk's for the price of
One!"

--
Thomas S Hatch
2013-01-07 19:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Well, this is turning into an exciting thread!
I think that we can do a few things, abstract extra data to add to the
monitoring configs and the like and maybe building systems that can use
Salt for reporting to other monitoring backends. I think this should
probably be a big part of 0.13.0
Post by Dan Garthwaite
I commented before reading the great writeup Tor has put up. Seems I
jumped on his bandwagon, and I apologize. His holistic walk-through of how
to tie into salt's returners, runners, and peer system is just what I
needed and really lacking in the default documentation.
I also have the flu right now. :) The following ramblings may be
medicated.
My post was a synthesis of some of the things I've seen on this list and
what I've already done.
What I have running is icinga configured and maintained by check_mk, which
runs over passwordless ssh to invoke check-mk-agent on minions. Salt
configures all the glue. I'm still manually adding new hosts to check_mk,
but that is just one line. Salt's reactor might be just what I need to
automate this.
The rest of this post will sound like evangelizing check_mk. It does a
lot for you and is hard to pin down a single definition for it. It is a
pile o python that can completely abstract away nagios's objects and
templates for you. I've used nagios for a decade now and will never go
back to vim'ing 16 files per host in a complex environment. I guess it's
author has gone to war applying DRY to nagios.
It also consolidates all remote checks (formerly NRPE) to one fork and
connection per host with a simple, single file agent. Here is the output
of a check_mk_agent run: https://gist.github.com/4476003
It also allows you to maintain a normal checks (it calls them legacy
checks) in a single place, and apply these checks via tags (roles).
Here is an example of how check_mk can mesh with a pillar of roles. Say
we put in a pillar that app03 has roles 'mongodb' and 'wsgi_app1'. You can
then use salt to install a LAMP stack + mongodb, and deploy your Paste app.
"app03|ssh|mongodb|python",
It uses the pipe character to add arbitrary tags. All of my hosts have
the ssh tag, which tells check_mk that it is to connect via ssh. ( Here is
where it could be improved to use salt's zeromq connections ). Then it has
mongodb and python tags. Adding these via a jinja snippet should be easy
from the roles in pillar.
The mongodb tag incorporates more checks for this host to remotely verify
the tcp port AND internal checks from the host (status, memory size, number
of connections, etc).
Here is the "legacy check" that is applied to all hosts with the 'mongodb'
legacy_checks += [
( ("check-tcp!-p 31867", "MongoDB", True), ['mongodb'], ALL_HOSTS ),
]
Again, check_mk creates all the hosts, commands, and templates for you
with that one line.
The python tag is magic: I've configured check_mk to inventory only
certain python processes on hosts tagged 'python' and keep track of them.
It auto generates checks for all python processes matching predefined
strings. I've configured 'wsgi', 'beaver', 'salt-minion', and
'supervisor'.
Each of these are a single line in a configuration, for example, learning
( ['python'], ALL_HOSTS, "Paste", "~.*python .*paster", GRAB_USER, 1, 1,
2, 2 ),
To translate: All hosts with 'python' tag, when inventorying, search for
regex ".*python .*paster" , if present, create a new passive check called
Paste, make sure the UID doesn't change, and set the Warn and Crit levels
... That is a hell of a lot of file edits all over several Nagios objects
and templates. And there is nothing additionally run on the client. The
process list is already delivered via the check_mk_agent.
It even sets up graphing the memory usage, uptime, and number of processes
in pnp4nagios for you.
... it also creates pre-compiled python checks for each host that combine
all the checks for that host for you. Less forking.
"But wait! If you act now, we'll give you TWO check_mk's for the price of
One!"
--
--
Tor Hveem
2013-01-07 20:07:12 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Dan, I think I'll have to look at check_mk, because I was about to
reinvent some wheels :)

Thomas, we really need a best practice way of pinning roles or similar to
the minions.

I'd like to use this sort of psudo-code in my templates
{% for minion in salt.minions.has_state('icinga') %}
or {% for minion in salt.states['icinga'].minions %} or similar.

That would solve problems for a whole set of applications, and I can't find
a straightforward way to do it today.

I know I can use the peer interface, but this requires every minion to
answer, and salt already knows which states goes into which minion.

I guess I could write a state that writes out pillars or grains for this
too, but again, what's the best practice ? Why can't I easily tie this
togheter with the states defined. Atleast I haven't figured out how.
Post by Thomas S Hatch
Well, this is turning into an exciting thread!
I think that we can do a few things, abstract extra data to add to the
monitoring configs and the like and maybe building systems that can use
Salt for reporting to other monitoring backends. I think this should
probably be a big part of 0.13.0
Post by Dan Garthwaite
I commented before reading the great writeup Tor has put up. Seems I
jumped on his bandwagon, and I apologize. His holistic walk-through of how
to tie into salt's returners, runners, and peer system is just what I
needed and really lacking in the default documentation.
I also have the flu right now. :) The following ramblings may be
medicated.
My post was a synthesis of some of the things I've seen on this list and
what I've already done.
What I have running is icinga configured and maintained by check_mk,
which runs over passwordless ssh to invoke check-mk-agent on minions. Salt
configures all the glue. I'm still manually adding new hosts to check_mk,
but that is just one line. Salt's reactor might be just what I need to
automate this.
The rest of this post will sound like evangelizing check_mk. It does a
lot for you and is hard to pin down a single definition for it. It is a
pile o python that can completely abstract away nagios's objects and
templates for you. I've used nagios for a decade now and will never go
back to vim'ing 16 files per host in a complex environment. I guess it's
author has gone to war applying DRY to nagios.
It also consolidates all remote checks (formerly NRPE) to one fork and
connection per host with a simple, single file agent. Here is the output
of a check_mk_agent run: https://gist.github.com/4476003
It also allows you to maintain a normal checks (it calls them legacy
checks) in a single place, and apply these checks via tags (roles).
Here is an example of how check_mk can mesh with a pillar of roles. Say
we put in a pillar that app03 has roles 'mongodb' and 'wsgi_app1'. You can
then use salt to install a LAMP stack + mongodb, and deploy your Paste app.
"app03|ssh|mongodb|python",
It uses the pipe character to add arbitrary tags. All of my hosts have
the ssh tag, which tells check_mk that it is to connect via ssh. ( Here is
where it could be improved to use salt's zeromq connections ). Then it has
mongodb and python tags. Adding these via a jinja snippet should be easy
from the roles in pillar.
The mongodb tag incorporates more checks for this host to remotely verify
the tcp port AND internal checks from the host (status, memory size, number
of connections, etc).
Here is the "legacy check" that is applied to all hosts with the
legacy_checks += [
( ("check-tcp!-p 31867", "MongoDB", True), ['mongodb'], ALL_HOSTS ),
]
Again, check_mk creates all the hosts, commands, and templates for you
with that one line.
The python tag is magic: I've configured check_mk to inventory only
certain python processes on hosts tagged 'python' and keep track of them.
It auto generates checks for all python processes matching predefined
strings. I've configured 'wsgi', 'beaver', 'salt-minion', and
'supervisor'.
Each of these are a single line in a configuration, for example, learning
( ['python'], ALL_HOSTS, "Paste", "~.*python .*paster", GRAB_USER, 1,
1, 2, 2 ),
To translate: All hosts with 'python' tag, when inventorying, search for
regex ".*python .*paster" , if present, create a new passive check called
Paste, make sure the UID doesn't change, and set the Warn and Crit levels
... That is a hell of a lot of file edits all over several Nagios objects
and templates. And there is nothing additionally run on the client. The
process list is already delivered via the check_mk_agent.
It even sets up graphing the memory usage, uptime, and number of
processes in pnp4nagios for you.
... it also creates pre-compiled python checks for each host that combine
all the checks for that host for you. Less forking.
"But wait! If you act now, we'll give you TWO check_mk's for the price of
One!"
--
--
--
Thomas S Hatch
2013-01-07 20:11:20 UTC
Permalink
So correct me if I am wrong, but you want to be able to make minions aware
of each other's roles? I just added the grains.setval function so that role
assignment can be easier, perhaps we can set up some flag that adds keys
from the minion's grain caches to pillar?
Post by Tor Hveem
Thanks Dan, I think I'll have to look at check_mk, because I was about to
reinvent some wheels :)
Thomas, we really need a best practice way of pinning roles or similar to
the minions.
I'd like to use this sort of psudo-code in my templates
{% for minion in salt.minions.has_state('icinga') %}
or {% for minion in salt.states['icinga'].minions %} or similar.
That would solve problems for a whole set of applications, and I can't
find a straightforward way to do it today.
I know I can use the peer interface, but this requires every minion to
answer, and salt already knows which states goes into which minion.
I guess I could write a state that writes out pillars or grains for this
too, but again, what's the best practice ? Why can't I easily tie this
togheter with the states defined. Atleast I haven't figured out how.
Post by Thomas S Hatch
Well, this is turning into an exciting thread!
I think that we can do a few things, abstract extra data to add to the
monitoring configs and the like and maybe building systems that can use
Salt for reporting to other monitoring backends. I think this should
probably be a big part of 0.13.0
Post by Dan Garthwaite
I commented before reading the great writeup Tor has put up. Seems I
jumped on his bandwagon, and I apologize. His holistic walk-through of how
to tie into salt's returners, runners, and peer system is just what I
needed and really lacking in the default documentation.
I also have the flu right now. :) The following ramblings may be
medicated.
My post was a synthesis of some of the things I've seen on this list and
what I've already done.
What I have running is icinga configured and maintained by check_mk,
which runs over passwordless ssh to invoke check-mk-agent on minions. Salt
configures all the glue. I'm still manually adding new hosts to check_mk,
but that is just one line. Salt's reactor might be just what I need to
automate this.
The rest of this post will sound like evangelizing check_mk. It does a
lot for you and is hard to pin down a single definition for it. It is a
pile o python that can completely abstract away nagios's objects and
templates for you. I've used nagios for a decade now and will never go
back to vim'ing 16 files per host in a complex environment. I guess it's
author has gone to war applying DRY to nagios.
It also consolidates all remote checks (formerly NRPE) to one fork and
connection per host with a simple, single file agent. Here is the output
of a check_mk_agent run: https://gist.github.com/4476003
It also allows you to maintain a normal checks (it calls them legacy
checks) in a single place, and apply these checks via tags (roles).
Here is an example of how check_mk can mesh with a pillar of roles. Say
we put in a pillar that app03 has roles 'mongodb' and 'wsgi_app1'. You can
then use salt to install a LAMP stack + mongodb, and deploy your Paste app.
"app03|ssh|mongodb|python",
It uses the pipe character to add arbitrary tags. All of my hosts have
the ssh tag, which tells check_mk that it is to connect via ssh. ( Here is
where it could be improved to use salt's zeromq connections ). Then it has
mongodb and python tags. Adding these via a jinja snippet should be easy
from the roles in pillar.
The mongodb tag incorporates more checks for this host to remotely
verify the tcp port AND internal checks from the host (status, memory size,
number of connections, etc).
Here is the "legacy check" that is applied to all hosts with the
legacy_checks += [
( ("check-tcp!-p 31867", "MongoDB", True), ['mongodb'], ALL_HOSTS ),
]
Again, check_mk creates all the hosts, commands, and templates for you
with that one line.
The python tag is magic: I've configured check_mk to inventory only
certain python processes on hosts tagged 'python' and keep track of them.
It auto generates checks for all python processes matching predefined
strings. I've configured 'wsgi', 'beaver', 'salt-minion', and
'supervisor'.
Each of these are a single line in a configuration, for example,
( ['python'], ALL_HOSTS, "Paste", "~.*python .*paster", GRAB_USER, 1,
1, 2, 2 ),
To translate: All hosts with 'python' tag, when inventorying, search
for regex ".*python .*paster" , if present, create a new passive check
called Paste, make sure the UID doesn't change, and set the Warn and Crit
levels
... That is a hell of a lot of file edits all over several Nagios
objects and templates. And there is nothing additionally run on the
client. The process list is already delivered via the check_mk_agent.
It even sets up graphing the memory usage, uptime, and number of
processes in pnp4nagios for you.
... it also creates pre-compiled python checks for each host that
combine all the checks for that host for you. Less forking.
"But wait! If you act now, we'll give you TWO check_mk's for the price of
One!"
--
--
--
--
Dan Garthwaite
2013-01-07 20:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas S Hatch
So correct me if I am wrong, but you want to be able to make minions aware
of each other's roles? I just added the grains.setval function so that role
assignment can be easier, perhaps we can set up some flag that adds keys
from the minion's grain caches to pillar?
That is an interesting angle I didn't think of. I was thinking that running
state.highstate would "emit" it's roles, and the icinga minion would react
to it. But that isn't how it works. Somewhere along the line there is a
state to configure that minion for checks and _that_ could emit the event,
but then not everything is set up yet and things won't get inventoried. So
it has to be something run outside of, or after, states.

Should roles be a pillar or a grain, anyway? You are defining the reason
for a machine's existence.

--
Tor Hveem
2013-01-07 20:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, I don't see the best way forward, and my thoughts align with Dan's.

The backup servers needs to know which minions it should backup, the
monitoring systen needs to know which minions to monitor, etc.
Post by Dan Garthwaite
Post by Thomas S Hatch
So correct me if I am wrong, but you want to be able to make minions
aware of each other's roles? I just added the grains.setval function so
that role assignment can be easier, perhaps we can set up some flag that
adds keys from the minion's grain caches to pillar?
That is an interesting angle I didn't think of. I was thinking that
running state.highstate would "emit" it's roles, and the icinga minion
would react to it. But that isn't how it works. Somewhere along the line
there is a state to configure that minion for checks and _that_ could emit
the event, but then not everything is set up yet and things won't get
inventoried. So it has to be something run outside of, or after, states.
Should roles be a pillar or a grain, anyway? You are defining the reason
for a machine's existence.
--
--
s***@realisator.ch
2017-02-10 10:22:49 UTC
Permalink
It's in german but also a good alternative to replace nrpe with salt:
http://docs.lenux.org/salt-nagios-check-script-eine-alternative-zu-nrpe
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+***@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/8e47b001-fd63-4f74-9e64-a1b986e63535%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
C. R. Oldham
2017-02-10 15:45:03 UTC
Permalink
That URL seems to 404, but I searched Tor's website and I found a similar
article in English:

https://hveem.no/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement


*--cro*
C. R. Oldham
Senior Platform Engineer, Integrations Team Lead, SaltStack
Post by s***@realisator.ch
http://docs.lenux.org/salt-nagios-check-script-eine-alternative-zu-nrpe
Post by Tor Hveem
Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of concept for using salt to run checks and
feed into icinga as passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's still some work to do
before it's done.
It might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can be used
for.
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or critisisms.
Best regards,
Tor Hveem
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/salt-users/8e47b001-fd63-4f74-9e64-a1b986e63535%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/8e47b001-fd63-4f74-9e64-a1b986e63535%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+***@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/CACigG6WobynC8kTWZGVs-%2B6gkyaxn9Uhjy4%2BgdMnmx3xGwDgQA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
James O'Neill
2017-02-20 22:41:32 UTC
Permalink
I've been testing a small custom NSCA returner with checks scheduled via
Pillar data:
https://gist.github.com/hemebond/56320892bf21d3ff76ae3fbb7bc747de
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+***@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/cd49019e-0cdf-4166-a5d2-f9329ac90c10%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
gregorionation via Salt-users
2017-02-10 15:58:20 UTC
Permalink
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2/10/17, C. R. Oldham <***@saltstack.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [salt-users] Re: Using salt for icinga/nagios checks instead of NRPE
To: "salt-***@googlegroups.com" <salt-***@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017, 5:45 PM

That URL
seems to 404, but I searched Tor's website and I found a
similar article in English:
https://hveem.no/salt-icinga-nrpe-replacement


--croC. R.
OldhamSenior Platform Engineer, Integrations Team Lead,
***@saltstack.com
/ 801-564-4673

On
Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:22 AM, <***@realisator.ch>
wrote:
It's in german but also a good alternative to
replace nrpe with salt: http://docs.lenux.org/salt-
nagios-check-script-eine- alternative-zu-nrpe

Am Samstag, 5. Januar 2013
23:49:22 UTC+1 schrieb Tor Hveem:Hello,
I did a writeup of my proof of
concept for using salt to run checks and feed into icinga as
passive checks instead of using agent like NRPE.
I haven't taken it into production yet, so there's
still some work to do before it's done.It
might also serve as a demo what runners and peer publish can
be used for. 

Have a look at:
http://hveem.no/2013/01/05/sal
t-icinga-nrpe-replacement
Feel free to suggest improvements or
critisisms.


Best regards,Tor
Hveem




--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Salt-users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to salt-users+unsubscribe@
googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/salt-users/8e47b001- fd63-4f74-9e64-a1b986e63535%
40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
optout.






--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Salt-users" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to salt-users+***@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/CACigG6WobynC8kTWZGVs-%2B6gkyaxn9Uhjy4%2BgdMnmx3xGwDgQA%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
rimele semne ingrijoratoare privind destructurarea statala a Europei centrale si sud-estice sub presiunea Marilor Puteri revizioniste au fost corect receptionate la Bucuresti. Dupa ocuparea Austriei de catre Germania 12 martie 1938 la Bucuresti se luau masuri imperative impotriva organizatiei extremiste de dreapta Garda de Fier iar la 30 aprilie 1938 in contextul declansarii crizei cehoslovace era aprobata survolarea teritoriului romanesc de catre avioanele achizitionate de Cehoslovacia din URSS.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+***@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/salt-users/71042674.2828951.1486742300168%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Loading...