Repeat: Issues with DOWNTIME, purple status, and sslcert test
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I asked this question in about March of last year and didn't get any replies. Figured I'd give it another shot as it has been a persistent annoyance since then (though the behavior has changed slightly, which I've edited below):
Hunted around on Google and the mailing list archives about this one, but I'm turning nothing up.
I have some downtime statements listed for a few hosts (names and IP's changed to protect probably nothing, but hey):
10.11.12.13 host1.umdnj.edu # "DOWNTIME=ldap,ldaps,sslcert:*:2200:2300:Development/Test Systems Cold Bacukup" 10.11.12.14 host2.umdnj.edu # "DOWNTIME=ldap,ldaps,sslcert:*:2200:2300:Development/Test Systems Cold Bacukup" 0.0.0.0 host3.umdnj.edu # "DOWNTIME=http,sslcert:*:2200:2300:Development/Test Systems Cold Bacukup" 0.0.0.0 host4.umdnj.edu # "DOWNTIME=http,sslcert:*:2200:2300:Development/Test Systems Cold Bacukup"
The downtime is picked up fine, and correctly, in the "info" test on the hosts. What's interesting is what happens when the time rolls around with the sslcert test (I'll pick Friday night out of the air, but there's nuance every day):
host1: Green until purple at 2245. host2: Ditto. host3: Ditto. host4: Blue at ~2200, red at 2245.
All four share the same DOWNTIME definition, aside from the tests involved, so I'm mighty confused. Is there some interplay here that I'm not aware of (either by what triggers an sslcert test, https/ldaps/etc., or by using 0.0.0.0 on some of the hosts, the actual status of the hosts during the DOWNTIME, etc.) that someone might have some hints for teasing out?
- ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Sr. Systems Programmer |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj at umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/CST-Academic Svcs. - ADMC 450, Newark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0kkYMACgkQmb+gadEcsb7WnwCcDjjcoVeCc40pBoQYhqBUo/oO pHkAnj2idab920W2cvFfsuT6Q7z/5bEV =Xk75 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
The downtime is picked up fine, and correctly, in the "info" test on the hosts
I've run into issues with this in the past. The code that parses the DOWNTIME for the info page seems to be different from the code that actually implements it. Things that show up correctly in the web view won't necessarily work. I forget what's different about the syntax, but I know I've mentioned it on the list before. If you search for posts from me on DOWNTIME, hopefully it'll explain.
-- Rob McBroom <http://www.skurfer.com/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/05/2011 10:59 AM, Rob McBroom wrote:
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
The downtime is picked up fine, and correctly, in the "info" test on the hosts
I've run into issues with this in the past. The code that parses the DOWNTIME for the info page seems to be different from the code that actually implements it. Things that show up correctly in the web view won't necessarily work. I forget what's different about the syntax, but I know I've mentioned it on the list before. If you search for posts from me on DOWNTIME, hopefully it'll explain.
I've located the thread. Can any developer (Henrik?) comment on whether this issue has been fixed in later versions, either the documentation or the behavior or both?
http://www.xymon.com/archive/2009/04/msg00301.html
This is a detailed explanation of the issue by Dominic Frise from 2009, but apparently there's a mention of it in that message from 2008.
- ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Sr. Systems Programmer |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj at umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/CST-Academic Svcs. - ADMC 450, Newark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0km8QACgkQmb+gadEcsb7ZOwCg1W6pXdF1iL7jNhqKWfnCyXIR x24AoILp1tdu9Vensu259xB8ZM41F9uT =qJCp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rob McBroom <mailto:mailinglist0 at skurfer.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
The downtime is picked up fine, and correctly, in the "info" test on the hosts
I've run into issues with this in the past. The code that parses the DOWNTIME for the info page seems to be different from the code that actually implements it. Things that show up correctly in the web view won't necessarily work. I forget what's different about the syntax, but I know I've mentioned it on the list before. If you search for posts from me on DOWNTIME, hopefully it'll explain.
I believe this has been improved now in the 4.3.0 tree. (See my message from 5-Nov-2010.) From what I've heard 4.3.0 seems to be very close to release, so you may want to try it. I suggest the best way to get the latest fixes is to check it out with subversion. (Search the mailing list for instructions.)
Kind regards,
SebA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/05/2011 11:45 AM, SebA wrote:
Rob McBroom <mailto:mailinglist0 at skurfer.com> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Ryan Novosielski wrote:
The downtime is picked up fine, and correctly, in the "info" test on the hosts
I've run into issues with this in the past. The code that parses the DOWNTIME for the info page seems to be different from the code that actually implements it. Things that show up correctly in the web view won't necessarily work. I forget what's different about the syntax, but I know I've mentioned it on the list before. If you search for posts from me on DOWNTIME, hopefully it'll explain.
I believe this has been improved now in the 4.3.0 tree. (See my message from 5-Nov-2010.) From what I've heard 4.3.0 seems to be very close to release, so you may want to try it. I suggest the best way to get the latest fixes is to check it out with subversion. (Search the mailing list for instructions.)
Kind regards,
Very good, thanks. I will wait for the release -- I do not have a testing system and my management would be skittish about me installing a pre-release I imagine (even one less buggy than stable).
- ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ |Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Sr. Systems Programmer |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |novosirj at umdnj.edu - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/CST-Academic Svcs. - ADMC 450, Newark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk0koYgACgkQmb+gadEcsb68mwCfakoi2FaVBTPQa5aFnGlK8j2g 7QwAoJDnxpLlSSPx49ph3qT6ihKBlQJS =eT23 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
mailinglist0＠skurfer.com
-
novosirj＠umdnj.edu
-
spa＠syntec.co.uk