Passive Service - timestamp

[cellact]

Hi,
What's the point of the timestamp entry when submitting passive service results?
From our tests, Nagios doesn't relate to the time supplied, and instead uses it's own time for the results.

Can we submit passive service results for some time in the past?

Cheers!

[scottwilkerson]

It uses it's own time for when the result was received.

However, if you haven't already logged newer results and the results come in "in order" your performance graph will fill with the back data.

For this to work, the results must come in, in order as the RRD's cannot accept results from the past if it already has a newer result.

[cellact]

Thanks, but I'm unable to get it to work.

I've createad a new passive service that I submit results to.
The timestamp is indeed used correctly for the 'state duration' i.e. "Duration: 1d 0h 5m 21s" for results submitted now but with a timestamp of -24hrs.
But the graphs are being created for the current time

How can I get this to work right?

Thanks.

[scottwilkerson]

You cannot submit data into the graphs for a timeperiod earlier than any timeperiod previously submitted

For example, if I had submitted a check result with a timestamp of
1372872263

I cannot submit a check following that with a timestamp of
1372871963

and have the performance data processed, as it is in the past.

The check result will be shown, but the performance data will not reflect the data

[cellact]

I'm testing this with a newly created passive service.
I'm submitting results with a -24hrs epoch timestamp but the graphs are being created for current time.

[scottwilkerson]

I'm sorry, I had definitely made a mistake in representing this scenario.

The performance data does in fact get created for the current time as the performance is marked when it is added, disregarding the ts.

[cellact]

Thanks.

Can I add a feature request for this?

[scottwilkerson]

You can feel free to post one here
http://tracker.nagios.com

I do know that the way RRD's work, if it was possible to get it implemented, the passive results would absolutely have to come in to the XI server in the correct order, oldest to newest.