Nagios Support Forum

OS: Centos 5.5
Version: Nagios xi 2011R1.2

This should be a simple question, but I don't know how to look up the answer to it. When we create hostgroups, we don't want the service groups or the hostgroups to actually do anything but be "identifiers". If we create a service and add a "hostgroup" to that service, we noticed that the service will appear on every host in that hostgroup. Is there any way to prevent this type of behavior?

Not really - that's a central point of what they are supposed to do.

It's also a central pain point for us. Here's what is happening. Our international markets will often select a hostgroup for the service and end up adding 300 alerts all at the same time and it's really difficult to track down where the problem comes from. Other people might use the functionality, but it's caused us more headaches than anything else.

It sounds like you are looking for a new "pseudo-group" feature that doesn't affect how services are replicated, but does allow you to group things in the UI. Is that correct?

It would solve some of our business problems that we're experiencing especially with new people setting up monitors. Also, we don't use the functionality so we can easily find and correct the problems.

Would this be of any use for you? It currently doesn't support user-based authorizations for the hosts and services, but I thought I might mention it as a possibility. It would allow you to visually group your services without actually doing anything with the check assignments.
http://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Ad ... ce/details

Yeah, that plugin isn't what we're looking for. We wanted to turn off certain behavior with the hostgroups. The service groups don't have this behavior so it is not consistent. If I add multiple services to one service group, they don't automatically add the different services to the other hostnames. With hostgroups, if we add a service and put it in a hostgroup, it puts that service on all the hosts in that hostgroup. We want to disable that functionality. Does that make sense?

Yeah that makes sense. Unfortunately at the moment that's fairly integrated into the logic of the object definitions, so I don't know if we have a good solution for you at the moment...