New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[dev.icinga.com #12135] ITL: check_iftraffic64.pl default values, wrong postfix value in CheckCommand #4359
Comments
Updated by jmeyer on 2016-07-12 06:18:52 +00:00
|
Updated by gbeutner on 2016-07-12 07:14:42 +00:00
Can you provide a patch for this? |
Updated by mfriedrich on 2016-07-12 07:58:31 +00:00 AFAIK there are two versions of this plugin. Our documentation links to https://exchange.icinga.org/exchange/iftraffic which expects the percent values. Can you provide the plugin's URL you are using? |
Updated by ronator on 2016-07-12 10:13:59 +00:00 Yes, I know there are two versions: check_iftraffic.pl and check_iftraffic64.pl. And as far as I can see, icinga2 uses check_iftraffic64.pl per default - not the "newer" version check_iftraffic.pl that you mentioned. I am using icinga2 version r2.4.10-1 - in my plugins-contrib.d/network-components.conf there is a CheckCommand Definition called "iftraffic" and this one links to check_iftraffic64.pl. I can see the same in the repository file in root/itl/plugins-contrib.d/network-components.conf on line 299 where it says [ PluginContribDir + "/check_iftraffic64.pl"] So the ITL uses check_iftraffic64.pl. And this is the version that complains about non-integer when % is given after the value. So as far I can see, ITL is using the wrong plugin. Plugin-URL: https://exchange.nagios.org/directory/Plugins/Network-Connections%2C-Stats-and-Bandwidth/check\_iftraffic64/details Best |
Updated by mfriedrich on 2016-07-12 10:46:39 +00:00
Ok point taken. I've modified the "iftraffic" CheckCommand pointing to the correct plugin. In addition to that I've created a new CheckCommand definition with adjusted thresholds. The check_iftraffic64.pl plugin is now uploaded to exchange.icinga.org as well: https://exchange.icinga.org/exchange/check\_iftraffic64 Please test that accordingly. |
Updated by mfriedrich on 2016-07-12 11:15:04 +00:00
Applied in changeset 172b57e. |
Updated by ronator on 2016-07-12 11:58:24 +00:00 I was asked to test it. I did. Suprisingly, both plugins expect the value without % sign. I am sorry, I was misled. I didn't use iftraffic but iftraffic64 so it wasn't me who said, one plugin needs them with % sign ;-) Both plugins also say, they want integer values: -c --critical INTEGER I can call both plugins with % sign on command line and it will work - output data - but with same error messages as in icingaweb2:
Argument "50%" isn't numeric in numeric gt (>) at /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_iftraffic.pl line 250.
Argument "50%" isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_iftraffic64.pl line 799. I am sorry for this confusion (and extra work) but obviously, both plugins do not expect a % sign. |
This issue has been migrated from Redmine: https://dev.icinga.com/issues/12135
Created by ronator on 2016-07-11 14:46:07 +00:00
Assignee: mfriedrich
Status: Resolved (closed on 2016-07-12 11:15:04 +00:00)
Target Version: 2.5.0
Last Update: 2016-07-12 11:58:24 +00:00 (in Redmine)
When I execute 'iftraffic' with its defaults defined in /usr/share/icinga2/include/plugins-contrib.d/network-components.conf, I get an error on cmd and web ui:
Argument "85" isn't Argument "85" isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_iftraffic64.pl line 799.numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/lib/nagios/plugins/check_iftraffic64.pl line 799. Basically, it complains about the '%' sign.
I checked the latest code, the misconfig is still there, if I am not looking at the wrong files:
root/itl/plugins-contrib.d/network-components.conf; rows 340 and 341:
This is easy to fix: Please remove the percent signs from the values, then the check works as intended. Thank you and
Best wishes
Ron
Changesets
2016-07-12 10:46:56 +00:00 by mfriedrich 172b57e
2016-07-12 16:39:57 +00:00 by mfriedrich b0e6eb0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: