NCPA Performance Data Errors
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:42 am
I am evaluating NCPA for a project that would use both active and passive checks. In my evaluation it looks like perforrmance data needs some work. Using version 1.7.2.
Here are a few examples:
Active Check Port Bandwidth
It looks like using an active check the bytes are simply appended (meaning it just gets bigger) to the graphing so that you are always in Critical status since the bytes never get changed to per sec as indicated in the text. If you look closely you can see it is listed in Terabytes on the chart but bytes in the text. My network connection certainly cannot do 20 T per second...wish it could.
Passive Processes
Another issue is that when monitoring processes the output says: "OK: Process count for processes named ncpa_listener.exe was 1c" which is correct but the graph shows no process is alive.
Here is the command:
%HOSTNAME%|NCPA_Listener.exe = /process/ncpa_listener.exe/running
Graphing Labels Occurs in Active and Passive
All of the labels have "_0" or "_1" after then name. In addition the CPU graph has two labels but it is impossible to know what the two fields are.
Here are a few examples:
Active Check Port Bandwidth
It looks like using an active check the bytes are simply appended (meaning it just gets bigger) to the graphing so that you are always in Critical status since the bytes never get changed to per sec as indicated in the text. If you look closely you can see it is listed in Terabytes on the chart but bytes in the text. My network connection certainly cannot do 20 T per second...wish it could.
Passive Processes
Another issue is that when monitoring processes the output says: "OK: Process count for processes named ncpa_listener.exe was 1c" which is correct but the graph shows no process is alive.
Here is the command:
%HOSTNAME%|NCPA_Listener.exe = /process/ncpa_listener.exe/running
Graphing Labels Occurs in Active and Passive
All of the labels have "_0" or "_1" after then name. In addition the CPU graph has two labels but it is impossible to know what the two fields are.