Page 2 of 2
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:26 pm
by td3201
Latest, 0.4.3.
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:08 pm
by lgroschen
NCPA is a pretty good tool and many people like it, but I would ensure that it works on all the platforms you will use it on:
http://assets.nagios.com/downloads/ncpa/download.php
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:02 am
by Box293
td3201 wrote:Latest, 0.4.3.
0.4.3 and 0.4.2 are still heavily under development and is pretty buggy. 0.4.1 seems pretty stable.
I believe what you are experiencing is a bug in the code.
I looked at some of the other ones like
check_negate.
This worked:
Code: Select all
Command:
./check_nrpe -H win2008r2-01 -c check_negate -a "command=check_memory"
Output:
OK: |'committed'=0.58264GB;6.39775;7.19747;0;7.99719 'committed %'=7%;79;89;0;100 'physical'=0.58946GB;3.1996;3.59955;0;3.9995 'physical %'=14%;80;90;0;100
So I assume that check_always_ok has not been properly coded in yet.
This page says:
CheckAlwaysOK Alternative name for: check_always_ok Run another check and regardless of its return code return OK
So if I try that I get:
Code: Select all
Command:
./check_nrpe -H win2008r2-01 -c CheckAlwaysOk -a "command=check_memory"
Output:
|
Doesn't look properly coded.
It would be worthwhile logging an issue on GitHub:
https://github.com/mickem/nscp
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:50 am
by td3201
Thanks for looking into this. Interesting that the version is flagged as stable when it clearly has issues.
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:05 pm
by slansing
I agree, unfortunately we have no control over that. Let us know if you get any responses, or you can post the issue here as well! Thanks!
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:50 am
by td3201
0.4.1 is a lot better.
Re: nsclient++ check_always_ok syntax
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:08 am
by Box293
td3201 wrote:0.4.1 is a lot better.
Agreed
td3201 wrote:Interesting that the version is flagged as stable when it clearly has issues
Agreed++
