Hi Jurgen,

On 5 Jan 2010, at 19:15, Jürgen Meusburger, die meuse.Bezau wrote:


here are the results (tested with the new plugin):

1. on Firewalls where both Versions (v1 + v2c) are enabled.

the check without version specification does work:
r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.254 -I port1 - i -o WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - port1 (lan.meuse) is up, throughput (in/out) 9.55 Kbps/11.9 Kbps, 0%/0.01%|throughput_in=9784b throughput_out=12192b

This should default to v2, so that looks correct.


check with version v 1 specified works but does not read throughput?:
r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.254 -I port1 - i -o -v 1 WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - port1 (lan.meuse) is up, throughput (in/out) 0 bps/0 bps, 0%/0%| throughput_in=0b throughput_out=0b

My guess is that the throughput information is not gathered from v1 connection, so while it is a bit unusual, I don't think this is a bug.


check with version 2c specified works but throughput is a mess:
r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.254 -I port1 - i -o -v 2c WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - port1 (lan.meuse) is up, throughput (in/out) 10.58 Gbps/19.52 Gbps, 10842.35%/19998.12%|throughput_in=11369037392b throughput_out=20969555048b

This plugin uses state information between invocations (hence the warning message). Since the prior run with your test of snmpv1 effectively reset the counters back to 0, it appears that the throughput is a massive change. So I don't think this is a bug either, just an effect of the sequence of tests.




test with disabling wheather v1 or v2c on the firewall result in correct data for v2c and no throughput data for v1.

2. on switches with only v2c enabled (no option for v1):

the check without version specification does not work:
r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.200 -I swp00 - i -o WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios
UNKNOWN - Interface swp00 not found!

I'm a bit surprised about this. I would have expected snmpv2c to be used and results should be same as specifying v2c on the command line.


check with v1 does work, although there is no option on the switch for version 1. furthermore the troughput result is somewhat unrealistic for a gigabit uplink: r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.200 -I swp00 - i -o -v 1 WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - swp00 (UP1) is up, throughput (in/out) 16 bps/0 bps, 0%/0%| throughput_in=16b throughput_out=0b

Again, I think the results from v1 do not include the 64bit counters correctly.


check with v2c does work, although the result here for throughput/ out is not possible (1000Mbit interface): r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.200 -I swp00 - i -o -v 2c WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - swp00 (UP1) is up, throughput (in/out) 29.66 Kbps/80.51 Gbps, 0%/8645.37%|throughput_in=30376b throughput_out=86453772600b

Again, this is due to the last run resetting the previous values to 0, hence the big difference.


here is the same check a few moments later with a more realistic result: r...@opsview:~# ./check_snmp_linkstatus -H 192.168.10.200 -I swp00 - i -o -v 2c WARNING: Running from command line. This could change statistics for the next run from Nagios OK - swp00 (UP1) is up, throughput (in/out) 20.21 Kbps/19.67 Kbps, 0%/0%|throughput_in=20704b throughput_out=20144b

This is what the regular results should be showing.

In summary, make sure you set SNMPv2c for gigabit devices in order to utilise 64bit counters correctly. The plugin should run with the specific snmp version configured in Opsview's host edit pages.

Thanks for the testing!

Ton

_______________________________________________
Opsview-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opsview.org/lists/listinfo/opsview-users

Reply via email to