Nagios Support Forum

dear ssax

can you plz do a favor, can you attache both files of yours (working one) and with surety that will work with our XI version (5.x.x), let me compare with mine, if needed more help, I will PM to you or will attach u have asked.

regards

See attached.

Thanks ssax

its minor feature but was very very important, looks you (NagiosXI Team) have fixed in
5.6.8 - Nov/05/2019
Fixed threshold/range function in check_rrdtraf plugin -CD,JO

but after 5+ years? plz read my below post and u will feel my pain....and found did not explain in detail, I could do (fix) this six months back.

I think nagios support should send email if any feature done what the user asked (can be an auto email).

I replaced only

check_rrdtraf

...but plz wait for my final comments...and looks working fine.

please read mine
https://support.nagios.com/forum/viewto ... eshold+rrd

and mine comments: Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:15 pm

Plz add tiny feature in this check_rrdtraf (must show ifIndex , like its show in Status). We use all our host name as below and have done that

london-juniper-1
france-paris-cisco-3750
mydslam-9000

HUSSTRNG=`echo $FILE| cut -d'_' -f 2`
HUSSTRNG=`echo $HUSSTRNG| cut -d'.' -f 1`
echo -n "OK ($HUSSTRNG) Current BW in:

regards

Thanks for the input. I will file a feature request to change the check_rrdtraf output.

Thanks cdienger

Can you plz make sure that new "Network Router/Switch" XI6.0 wizard incorporate low threshold too.

Warning 2% low threshold , I think 90% good for High Threshold
Critical 1% low threshold , I think 95% good for High Threshold

my main concern in the coming XI6.0 "Network Switch/Router" wizard, please add Low Threshold (field) input choice too, currently its only High Threshold is there, not lower.

still there is bug, low threshold not working properly
[img]rrd-low-threshold-still-bug.PNG[/img]

Regards

Are you referring to the default value percentages highlighted in the attached screenshot or elsewhere?

Yes cdienger , you are correct (Low_Threshold to be add with High_Threshold)

there is very nice option, user has control to select (all or only one or both) very good
the Port
the Status
the Bandwidth

the same way as above user should have option to select THRESHOLD option

plz make sure choice should given to user, use will select either option
1. none - no threshold
2. only low bandwidth
3. only high bandwidth
4. both low and high bandwidth threshold

==================================

next issue , as I mentioned, still there is bug for Low Threshold , you have to fix.

I dont know may be its due to BASH bc (weakness of Bash Calculator) but you have to fix.

You know, now many links are in 10G , if our link is 10G and if Configure Low Threshold in .002 , 0.001 (not working properly) same way
if link is in MegaBits (Mbps) , if I configure Low Threshold in .002 or .001 (not working properly)

FYI, to overcome this BUG, I removed Low_Threshold setting from BANDWIDTH and copied BANDWIDTH to Low_Traffic) changed Unit from G to M (or M to K) and added Low_Threshold , working fine. (but double work), we have 50000 links (Services) cannot do, no way (only did for very very critical links you can say just for 10 links only)....you have to fix this BUG (Low Threshold not working properly)....plz check screenshot in my previous post.

regards

For the BUG - Please provide a screenshot showing the full command that is being run as well as the results it returns.

dear cdienger

in my previous post its attached, however find once again

[img]low%20BW%20threshold%20bug.png[/img]

I think the output coming in two decimal digits, if convert to three digits, looks problem will resolve, plz check

OK (546) Current BW in: .01Gbps Out: .04Gbps

its Showing CRITICAL when its CRITICAL (546) Current BW in: 0Gbps Out: .04Gbps

regards

Please edit this file:
Change this (around line 43):
To this:
Then test again and let us know if that resolves your issue.

It's because when you specify -l G it uses the G values which only goes 2 decimals which equals 0.00, increasing to 4 or higher should fix.