[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] hobbit-clients configuration not taking
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] hobbit-clients configuration not taking
- From: Greg Hubbard <glh.forums (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 15:07:20 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lb/NmkFJwMkusuIdGNCIfarwEKFrEyN+Pgk1ecGUZis=; b=SrYIy2hSdx+cbk7300qvzXwq7PjHcs7qLLqF3nuca6UzTfyRNbRSQqF033FuDvNO2T hZn+AhwYtLxmq1JMMfJ8PuRzU2bCRwszyAD4yp8zBxrtqKW7NXI81NRkfupuOAp5Whwr JdPtIMVwEaXuC5C8YO3Cnq31x/2JLb7RUqy50=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=RdZDBfyy7Kag/FNkc3YAc+BvbheQ6gpH9us08BUnm8YbB9JVg7I5u+ex6eQOqTSQ3Q F/Zw5drlMwUTO3XftB7TpvYFf/E73hDs6zzHB7xl2JOoyy2nnGvOkhSgCvdVwmEI/AxN 3qtC+EVjyVrKK5WalebPFbnTQ+a9NhD12oluI=
- References: <961092e10909091138j5a3aae2fjc09363d22b432dec (at) mail.gmail.com> <9f45dd4e0909091201h1a24bbffv1eb7736850a7d875 (at) mail.gmail.com> <961092e10909091219g5d825f7encccee4fef472ac77 (at) mail.gmail.com> <9f45dd4e0909091234vb1a7a04o43781d66dc7e8559 (at) mail.gmail.com> <961092e10909091256s6928e134sb1b06169de31f63c (at) mail.gmail.com>
Good. So if you tried PROC on "two" you should get something. Something is
deeply wrong on the other two hosts. And Xymon likes to silently ignore
errors.
My **guess** is that something crummy has happened to the failing clients.
Since there is not much to them they should be easy enough to check out.
Might be a good education.
Did you install from RPM, or compile your own copy of the client? Are you
able to reinstall the client piece from a known working source? Are you
using the "client update" piece where the client can fetch a tarball from
the server and install it on its own?
GLH
On 9/9/09, Josh Luthman <josh (at) imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
> Suggesting that the bbc is capable of labeling tests. The hobbit-clients'
> data is staying clear.
>
> two.myhost.com does have data and it is [ps] and [msgs:/var/log/messages]
>
> one.myhost.com and three.myhost.com has no data on the server.
>
> hobbitclient.log is full of:
> 2009-09-09 14:38:44 Failed to get a message, terminating
>
> $bb server.fqdn.com ping #this command works
> hobbit-4.2.0
>
> This is running a CentOS release 5.2 (Final) and CentOS release 5 (Final)
> respectively - "Red Hat Linux".
>
> One thread on the archives was able to fix it by installing the Debian
> package. Obviously I can't do that. The strange part is I executed the
> exact same commands across all three - the same ones I put up here
>
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/System_Monitoring_with_Xymon/Administration_Guide/Compiling_on_CentOS
>
> Perhaps there is a package missing of some sort? Is there a way to get
> more detailed logs from the hobbitclient.log?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Greg Hubbard <glh.forums (at) gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Then what was this all about? I guess I read it wrong.
>>
>> *"However on an bbc 1.9i btf (better then free) client it is pushing
>> PROCs to the server:
>>
>> #cat ~bbuser/bbc1.9i-btf/etc/bbwarnsetup.cfg:
>> ...
>> PROCS="bbrun" # (YELLOW) WARN IF NOT RUNNING
>> PAGEPROC="cron" # (RED) PAGE IF NOT RUNNING
>> export PROCS PAGEPROC"
>> *
>> What you might want to do is track down the "raw data" being sent by these
>> hosts to see if they contain a PROC secion. I think you can get to it on
>> each host through the
>> http://<xymon-server>/hobbit-cgi/bb-hostsvc.sh?CLIENT=<client<http://%3cxymon-server%3e/hobbit-cgi/bb-hostsvc.sh?CLIENT=%3Cclient>>
>> link. On Solaris you would look for a [ps] header, then a list of
>> processes. This will show you that the data is getting pumped over. (For
>> Linux, etc. there might be something different).
>>
>> And, if your config fragment is correct, you would not expect any PROC
>> checks for one or two, just for three, since you only defined them for three
>> and there are no PROC checks in the DEFAULT section.
>>
>
>
--
Disclaimer: 1) all opinions are my own, 2) I may be completely wrong, 3) my
advice is worth at least as much as what you are paying for it, or your
money cheerfully refunded.