Xymon Mailing List Archive search

xymon-4.4.0 - RECOVERED variable always 0

3 messages in this thread

list Joe Sloan · Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:06:52 -0700 ·
I've been working on the snmp trap notification script for xymon servers
we are testing, and it's partially working. I've set up the hobbit
alerts to send out an email and an snmp trap, for error conditions, and
for recovery. So far so good - I am getting the emails, and the snmp
traps are being sent out for both the failure and the recovery.

However, in troubleshooting the snmp traps, I discovered that the
RECOVERED variable, which is to be set to "1" if it's a recovery, is
always set to "0", so the trap code is never incremented, thus we see
the same trap code for the failure and the recovery, rather than the
recovery trap code being incremented 1 over the corresponding failure
trap code.

Sanity check, anyone?

Joe
list Joe Sloan · Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:44:46 -0700 ·
bump...

I've verified that the RECOVERED variable works as it should in
hobbit-4.2.0 -

Should I regard 4.4.0 as strictly experimental and use 4.3.0 instead?

Joe
quoted from Joe Sloan

J Sloan wrote:
I've been working on the snmp trap notification script for xymon servers
we are testing, and it's partially working. I've set up the hobbit
alerts to send out an email and an snmp trap, for error conditions, and
for recovery. So far so good - I am getting the emails, and the snmp
traps are being sent out for both the failure and the recovery.

However, in troubleshooting the snmp traps, I discovered that the
RECOVERED variable, which is to be set to "1" if it's a recovery, is
always set to "0", so the trap code is never incremented, thus we see
the same trap code for the failure and the recovery, rather than the
recovery trap code being incremented 1 over the corresponding failure
trap code.

Sanity check, anyone?

Joe

list Joe Sloan · Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:06:26 -0700 ·
quoted from Joe Sloan
J Sloan wrote:
bump...

I've verified that the RECOVERED variable works as it should in
hobbit-4.2.0 -

Should I regard 4.4.0 as strictly experimental and use 4.3.0 instead?
  
Hmm, perhaps so - to answer myself.

For the sake of the lurkers, I've verified that the RECOVERED variable
also works as advertised in 4.3.0 as well. So it looks like we'll base
our bb replacement efforts on 4.3.0.

Joe