Re: Using procfix...
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 08:47 -0500, Jean-Sebastien Morisset wrote: This morning I found automountd down on a few servers, so I'm looking at the procfix feature in snmpd.conf. The details on it's use are a little sketchy. For example, is a trap sent for the failure, or is the fix applied first. Is a trap sent after the fix command? Neither. proc and procfix don't actually trigger traps at all. At least not on their own - that's the realm of the (newer) monitor directive. The basic use of proc is to set a flag when it detects an error. It's up to an external management application to poll the agent to spot such error flags. The basic use of procfix is to run a command when it is explicitly told to do so (by some external management app). This command will *not* be run automatically (at least not on its own), or trigger a trap - either before or after being run. One possibility with the 5.3 release is to have the DisMan Event MIB trigger a suitable SET request (instead of sending a trap), that *will* execute the command automatically. This would look something as follows (untested!): setEvent jimllFixIt prErrFix = 1 monitor -S -r 128 -e jimllFixIt procTable prErrorFlag != 0 This functionality is only available with the 5.3 release. The previous Event MIB implementation did not support set events, just notifications. Dave --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=110944bid=241720dat=121642 ___ Net-snmp-users mailing list Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
Re: Using procfix...
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 02:32:11PM +, Dave Shield wrote: On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 08:47 -0500, Jean-Sebastien Morisset wrote: This morning I found automountd down on a few servers, so I'm looking at the procfix feature in snmpd.conf. The details on it's use are a little sketchy. For example, is a trap sent for the failure, or is the fix applied first. Is a trap sent after the fix command? Neither. proc and procfix don't actually trigger traps at all. At least not on their own - that's the realm of the (newer) monitor directive. The basic use of proc is to set a flag when it detects an error. It's up to an external management application to poll the agent to spot such error flags. The basic use of procfix is to run a command when it is explicitly told to do so (by some external management app). This command will *not* be run automatically (at least not on its own), or trigger a trap - either before or after being run. One possibility with the 5.3 release is to have the DisMan Event MIB trigger a suitable SET request (instead of sending a trap), that *will* execute the command automatically. This would look something as follows (untested!): setEvent jimllFixIt prErrFix = 1 monitor -S -r 128 -e jimllFixIt procTable prErrorFlag != 0 This functionality is only available with the 5.3 release. The previous Event MIB implementation did not support set events, just notifications. Dave, Excellent - thank you very much for your continued replies. I don't know where you find the time, but it's very much appreciated. In your example, would that mean a trap would never be sent, even if the procfix command failed? Is there a way to run the procfix and then generate a trap if the proc is still missing afterwards (checking the procfix exit code may not be reliable -- procfix may run ok but not restore the process)? Thanks, js. -- Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal Home Page http://jsmoriss.mvlan.net/ Underwater and Travel Photographs http://www.mvpix.com/ --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=110944bid=241720dat=121642 ___ Net-snmp-users mailing list Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
Re: Using procfix...
On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 09:46 -0500, Jean-Sebastien Morisset wrote: Excellent - thank you very much for your continued replies. I don't know where you find the time, No - neither do I. In your example, would that mean a trap would never be sent, even if the procfix command failed? Correct. proc and procfix have *nothing* to do with traps whatsoever. The only thing that does is monitor, and it's completely arbitrary as to what MIB objects this reports on. Is there a way to run the procfix and then generate a trap if the proc is still missing afterwards No. The only possibility would be to wait for the monitor entry to probe the prError flag again (or to have some external management application do this instead). But proc/procfix have no involvement with traps at all. Dave --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=110944bid=241720dat=121642 ___ Net-snmp-users mailing list Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
