Problem with UCS Checks

[benningtonr]

I have two Cisco Fabric Interconnect switches.
One reports fine the other does not.
Here is what I am getting at the command line
Before the firmware update they both worked fine.

Code: Select all

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ping 192.168.99.124
PING 192.168.99.124 (192.168.99.124) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.124: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.171 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.124: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.199 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.124 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 2 received, 33% packet loss, time 1999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.171/0.185/0.199/0.014 ms

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ping 192.168.99.125
PING 192.168.99.125 (192.168.99.125) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.99.125: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.151 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.125: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.229 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.99.125: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.225 ms
^C
--- 192.168.99.125 ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2894ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.151/0.201/0.229/0.039 ms

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ./check_icmp -H 192.168.99.125 -w 3000.0,80% -c 5000.0,10 0% -p 5
OK - 192.168.99.125: rta 0.189ms, lost 0%|rta=0.189ms;3000.000;5000.000;0; pl=0%;80;100;;

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ./check_icmp -H 192.168.99.124 -w 3000.0,80% -c 5000.0,10 0% -p 5
OK - 192.168.99.124: rta 0.191ms, lost 0%|rta=0.191ms;3000.000;5000.000;0; pl=0%;80;100;;

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ./check_ucs -H 192.168.99.125 -C whro-ro -T f -N chassis-1
8 objects OK

[ronb@nagios libexec]$ ./check_ucs -H 192.168.99.124 -C whro-ro -T f -N chassis-1
No OID match! Check your -H and -N or -T

[benningtonr]

the FI switch that is reporting normal, is the primary and the one that is failing to report is the subordinate.
I am not sure if that has anything to do with it or not.
Nor do I recall one being primary before, but I do not configure the FI switches often.

[tmcdonald]

Aside from the Primary/Subordinate setup, are there any configuration differences between the two? I'm afraid I am not familiar with this hardware so I can't really guess as to what the firmware upgrade may have changed.

[Box293]

Was this a major firmware upgrade or a minor one? It's not uncommon in major firmware upgrades that thwe behaviour of certain features change.

I suggest communicating with the creator of the plugin to see if you can resolve the issue.

[benningtonr]

not sure about it being major or minor, but both Switches were upgraded at the same time. One still works, the other not soo much.

[benningtonr]

Aside from the Primary/Subordinate setup, are there any configuration differences between the two? I'm afraid I am not familiar with this hardware so I can't really guess as to what the firmware upgrade may have changed.

No, they are identical, just that one is primary, which may have been the case before the upgrade and I just didn't notice.

[tmcdonald]

You might try doing an snmpwalk against the two and comparing the output. It's possible the OIDs change based on subordinate/insubordinate status, or maybe the sub had SNMP disabled somehow.