[Xymon] Ignoring file system when two "/" (root partitions) are reported

[Bill Arlofski]

On a Gentoo Linux system, after a recent baselayout update to openrc 2.x (at
least I believe that to be the culprit) xymon clients are now reporting back
TWO  "/" (root) filesystems, and xymon v4.3.4 is reporting and graphing them
both like so:


Tue Sep 13 13:16:58 EDT 2011 - Filesystems NOT ok

(yellow) / (92% used) has reached the WARNING level (90%)
(yellow) / (92% used) has reached the WARNING level (90%)

Filesystem         1024-blocks      Used Available Capacity Mounted on
rootfs                96571704  88758608   7813096      92% /
/dev/root             96571704  88758608   7813096      92% /

In analyze.cfg I have tried to ignore rootfs and then the regular expression
versions just in case xymon matched the whole line reported, and not just the
info in the "Mounted on" column:

HOST=hostname.domain.tld
    DISK rootfs IGNORE

or

HOST=hostname.domain.tld
    DISK %rootfs IGNORE

or

HOST=hostname.domain.tld
    DISK %^rootfs IGNORE

or

HOST=hostname.domain.tld
    DISK /dev/root IGNORE


but these of course will not work since the docs for analyze.cfg say that the
DISK test works on the MOUNT POINT, not the device, or partition.

Is there any way to ignore ONE of the two disk reports that are essentially
the same exact thing, only reported in two different formats?



Also, as a side note/suggestion, the docs might be a bit ambiguous/confusing
with regards to "filesystem" and  "mount point", using them
semi-interchangeably which can be needlessly confusing:

#    DISK filesystem warnlevel paniclevel
#    DISK filesystem IGNORE
#   If the utilization of "filesystem" is reported to exceed "warnlevel"

Then filesystem is described as...
# "filesystem" is the mount-point where the filesystem is mounted, e.g.


Perhaps that could be more clear if the test was defined like so:

# DISK mountpoint warnlevel paniclevel
# DISK mountpoint IGNORE

Then, there would be no need for the "filesystem is the mount point..." line
since it would be self-evident

Thanks!

--
Bill Arlofski
Reverse Polarity, LLC
http://www.revpol.com/