[Nagiosplug-devel] Re: Issues on check_disk

[Voon, Ton]

Just so I get this clear before I start making changes, for the case:

"warn 10% crit 5% for /tmp & /, warn 10MB crit 5MB for /var, everything else
warn (20% or 10MB) crit (10% or 5MB)"

I think the syntax should look like:

check_disk -w 10% -c 5% -p /tmp -p / -C -w 10000 -c 5000 -p /var -w 20% -c
10%

The order is vital. Picturing the code, it maybe possible to add -p DEFAULT
at the end of the above so 20% 10% is the default for everything else if you
think this makes more sense. I can make sure it still works without it.

Ton

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Karl DeBisschop [SMTP:karl at debisschop.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:52 AM
> To:	Voon, Ton
> Cc:	'NagiosPlug Devel'
> Subject:	RE: [Nagiosplug-devel] Re: Issues on check_disk
> 
> On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 13:04, Voon, Ton wrote:
> > (Damn Outlook makes it hard for me to add comments inline - apologies
> for
> > appending at the top)
> > 
> > Karl,
> > 
> > -w -1% is fine for clearing thresholds. Just seemed like a lot of dashes
> on
> > the command line, but you're right - the alternatives are not much
> better.
> > 
> > Fixed "check_disk warn crit [path]". This syntax had thresholds at used
> > levels so I've left it like that, whereas the new code is reporting and
> > expecting -w and -c on free levels so these two are equivalent:
> > 
> > check_disk -w 10% -c 5% -p /
> > check_disk 90 95 /
> > 
> > Personally, I think it is a bit peculiar to support a syntax which is a
> few
> > releases old, especially as we are breaking more current syntax...
> 
> I would propose that this syntax never be advertised. But to my mind,
> retaining it does not seem to hurt. I am constantly surpirsed how old
> some installs are, this constant dribble of 0.0.7 qustions...
> 
> > The way it is currently coded, when -p is seen, it will "save" the last
> set
> > of thresholds specified. If a threshold is set after the path is
> specified,
> > then this will be ignored. At the moment, you can't say "check 5% for
> /var
> > and 10% for everything else" - you have to list "everything else". Is
> this a
> > limitation?
> 
> I think so.
> 
> >  If so, what syntax do you propose? Are you saying a later -w -c
> > without a -p means "this threshold for everything else"? 
> 
> Instead of thinking of early thresholds as a 'default', we could think
> of them as a state. So a threshold setting would apply to all partitions
> before it with no threshold set, and all that follow until another
> threshold is defined (or it is unset, of course). Does that make sense?
> 
> I think it's not too hard to do with the code we currently have. 
> 
> > (All this syntax stuff is making me think that threshold parameter
> should
> > really be held as object variables. I think this is how Patrol does it
> > (badly) - send all values back to the central server which then does the
> > checking of thresholds)
> > 
> > Ton
> > 
> 


This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Egg.
The Egg group of companies includes Egg Banking plc
(registered no. 2999842), Egg Financial Products Ltd (registered
no. 3319027) and Egg Investments Ltd (registered no. 3403963) which
carries out investment business on behalf of Egg and is regulated
by the Financial Services Authority.  
Registered in England and Wales. Registered offices: 1 Waterhouse Square,
138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2NA.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have
received it in error, please notify the sender by replying with
'received in error' as the subject and then delete it from your
mailbox.