On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> Hi all
>
> You should know about freebsd and nagios 2.0b threads issues (100% cpu
> use by a forked process, lost check result, some pause of nagios main
> process in certains obscursives conditions...).
>
> Some Nagios developpers says that the probl
Hi Daniel,
i have already read this post, i am in freebsd 5.4-stable of August on a
SMP server and i have the problem...
The post which you suggest do not explain anything, or i missed something ?
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
Hi all
You should kn
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> i have already read this post, i am in freebsd 5.4-stable of August on a
> SMP server and i have the problem...
>
> The post which you suggest do not explain anything, or i missed something ?
The post said that nagios did not work with
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> Hi all
>
> You should know about freebsd and nagios 2.0b threads issues (100% cpu
> use by a forked process, lost check result, some pause of nagios main
> process in certains obscursives conditions...).
>
> Some Nagios developpers says that the probl
Daniel,
But i am in stable '5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #4: Tue Jul 5
11:18:14 CEST 2005' and i have again the problem ...
The post is from Jun 22... I don't understant why i have again the problem ?
Could u help me, please ?
Thanks.
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe
Hi again,
I just upgraded again to FreeBSD5.4-Stable of August 20 and, i just
killed a nagios loop process which consume 100% of CPU...
The problem seems to persist again...
How do think about this ?
Thanks in advance.
Christophe Yayon wrote:
Daniel,
But i am in stable '5.4-STABLE FreeBSD
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I just upgraded again to FreeBSD5.4-Stable of August 20 and, i just
> killed a nagios loop process which consume 100% of CPU...
> The problem seems to persist again...
>
> How do think about this ?
> Thanks in advance.
Go ask the nagios
I have already asked them...
here is a resume of our conversation (me and other freebsd guys) :
---
The thread I started is here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11193011801&r=1&w=2
There are some very interesting replies, a few in particular note that
Nagios may be breaking POSIX sp
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Eischen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christophe Yayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: nagios and freebsd threads issue : help please ...
> On
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Eischen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christophe Yayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: nagios and freebsd threads issue : help please ...
> On
Message -
From: "Daniel Eischen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christophe Yayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: nagios and freebsd threads issue : help please ...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Christophe Y
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Yayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_atfork.html
:
: "It is suggested that programs that use fork() call an exec function
: very soon afterwards in the child process, thus rese
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Christophe Yayon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_atfork.html
> :
> : "It is suggested that programs that use fork() call an exec function
> :
So there's something in the list, I've gone through and done a call
tree analysis to show the extensive and pervastive nature of the
functions that nagios calls after fork. I don't know if these are all
problems or not, since I don't know if some of these functions might
be called before the first
Very good analysis !
In conclusion, it's clear that there bad functions calls in Nagios,
i think i will copy/paste some lines from these mails and resume them to
nagios-devel mailling list, i hope it will help nagios developper...
Are you all ok for this ?
> So there's something in the list, I'
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Christophe Yayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Very good analysis !
: In conclusion, it's clear that there bad functions calls in Nagios,
: i think i will copy/paste some lines from these mails and resume them to
: nagios-devel mailling list, i hope it
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
:
: > So there's something in the list, I've gone through and done a call
: > tree analysis to show the extensive and pervastive nature of the
: > functions that nagi
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> So there's something in the list, I've gone through and done a call
> tree analysis to show the extensive and pervastive nature of the
> functions that nagios calls after fork. I don't know if these are all
> problems or not, since I don't know if some
Hi all,
Here is my copy/paste from freebsd-hackers to nagios-devel list, and the
answer from a Nagios developper.
Christophe Yayon wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> After some discussions on freebsd-hackers mailling list, here is a
resume :
>>
>> 1. There a recommendation (or a suggestion) for wha
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Christophe Yayon wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is my copy/paste from freebsd-hackers to nagios-devel list, and the
> answer from a Nagios developper.
Enough, please. The POSIX standard says what it says for a reason.
Other OS's may appear to work, but there may in fact be race c
Thanks for forwarding the reply.
First, I'll note that the response contains highly charged,
inflamitory language. I've tried my best to ignore that language and
focus on the actual issues. Second, this posting demonstrates a
fundamental confusion between thread-safe and async-safe. That is the
Hi all
> > This is funny, because nagios apparently runs properly on Linux, HPUX,
> > Solaris, Irix, AIX and Tru64. To me that seems to indicate that Nagios
> > is very portable indeed and that the BSD fellows somehow botched it. I
> > might be wrong, but...
>
> Just because it works doesn't make
>> > This is funny, because nagios apparently runs properly on Linux, HPUX,
>> > Solaris, Irix, AIX and Tru64. To me that seems to indicate that Nagios
This does not neccessary mean that it _really_ works.
There might be a race involved that usually ends up
lucky on these systems.
>> > is very po
23 matches
Mail list logo
