Poll: How many are using the "dispinclude" and "netinclude" options in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts ?
list Henrik Størner
Hi, I have a question for all of you. xymongen and xymonnet currently reads the hosts.cfg file from disk when they generate the webpages or run the network tests. Ever since the "bbgen toolkit" days, these programs have supported an additional type of "include" statement in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts: "dispinclude" works like "include", but is recognized only by xymongen, and "netinclude" does the same for xymonnet. I am considering removing these options, since that would make it very simple to eliminate the need for xymongen and xymonnet to have access to the hosts.cfg file - they can just fetch it from xymond, which both of them need to talk to anyway. But before I rip out this code, I would like to know how many are actually using it. So if you do use either of these commands in your hosts.cfg file, please speak up. Regards, Henrik
list Peter Welter
Well, we do. :-) I use this to make different kind of views: SLA-view, Solaris-view, Windows-view, etc, and still keeping the configuration a one place to stop and modify. All bb-hosts-files are inluded or dispincluded and made up on separate pages. regards --Peter 2011/9/9 Henrik Størner <user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid>
▸
Hi, I have a question for all of you. xymongen and xymonnet currently reads the hosts.cfg file from disk when they generate the webpages or run the network tests. Ever since the "bbgen toolkit" days, these programs have supported an additional type of "include" statement in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts: "dispinclude" works like "include", but is recognized only by xymongen, and "netinclude" does the same for xymonnet. I am considering removing these options, since that would make it very simple to eliminate the need for xymongen and xymonnet to have access to the hosts.cfg file - they can just fetch it from xymond, which both of them need to talk to anyway. But before I rip out this code, I would like to know how many are actually using it. So if you do use either of these commands in your hosts.cfg file, please speak up. Regards, Henrik ______________________________**
Xymon at xymon.com<
list Scot Kreienkamp
I wasn't aware there was an option of dispinclude or what it was used for. If I had I would be using it also. Scot Kreienkamp
▸
From: xymon-bounces at xymon.com [mailto:xymon-bounces at xymon.com] On Behalf Of Peter Welter
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Henrik Størner
Cc: Xymon mailinglist
Subject: Re: [Xymon] Poll: How many are using the "dispinclude" and "netinclude" options in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts ?
Well, we do. :-)
I use this to make different kind of views: SLA-view, Solaris-view, Windows-view, etc, and still keeping the configuration a one place to stop and modify.
All bb-hosts-files are inluded or dispincluded and made up on separate pages.
regards
--Peter
2011/9/9 Henrik Størner <user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid<mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid>>
▸
Hi,
I have a question for all of you.
xymongen and xymonnet currently reads the hosts.cfg file from disk when they generate the webpages or run the network tests. Ever since the "bbgen toolkit" days, these programs have supported an additional type of "include" statement in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts: "dispinclude" works like "include", but is recognized only by xymongen, and "netinclude" does the same for xymonnet.
I am considering removing these options, since that would make it very simple to eliminate the need for xymongen and xymonnet to have access to the hosts.cfg file - they can just fetch it from xymond, which both of them need to talk to anyway.
But before I rip out this code, I would like to know how many are actually using it. So if you do use either of these commands in your hosts.cfg file, please speak up.
Regards,
Henrik
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone at the above number. Thank you.
list Peter Welter
Hi Henrik, There does not seem to be very much users of dispinclude or netinclude!? I do not see very much traffic/response to your question. That brings me to the following: Double including bb-hosts-sub-files on a different pagesets results in a yellow bb-test-column: "Host xx.xx.xx.xx appears twice in bb-hosts! This may cause strange results" What would you suggest to do in this case? If I have a good alternative, that gives me similar behaviour that would be very much appreciated. Regards, Peter 2011/9/12 Scot Kreienkamp <user-462cf0b6d846@xymon.invalid>
▸
I wasn't aware there was an option of dispinclude or what it was used for. If I had I would be using it also. **** ** ** Scot Kreienkamp**** ** ** *From:* xymon-bounces at xymon.com [mailto:xymon-bounces at xymon.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Welter *Sent:* Monday, September 12, 2011 12:21 PM *To:* Henrik Størner *Cc:* Xymon mailinglist *Subject:* Re: [Xymon] Poll: How many are using the "dispinclude" and "netinclude" options in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts ?**** ** ** Well, we do. :-) I use this to make different kind of views: SLA-view, Solaris-view, Windows-view, etc, and still keeping the configuration a one place to stop and modify. All bb-hosts-files are inluded or dispincluded and made up on separate pages. regards --Peter**** 2011/9/9 Henrik Størner <user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid>**** Hi, I have a question for all of you. xymongen and xymonnet currently reads the hosts.cfg file from disk when they generate the webpages or run the network tests. Ever since the "bbgen toolkit" days, these programs have supported an additional type of "include" statement in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts: "dispinclude" works like "include", but is recognized only by xymongen, and "netinclude" does the same for xymonnet. I am considering removing these options, since that would make it very simple to eliminate the need for xymongen and xymonnet to have access to the hosts.cfg file - they can just fetch it from xymond, which both of them need to talk to anyway. But before I rip out this code, I would like to know how many are actually using it. So if you do use either of these commands in your hosts.cfg file, please speak up. Regards, Henrik ** ** This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail or by telephone at the above number. Thank you. ******
<#1325e80159f79941_>
list Buchan Milne
▸
On Friday, 9 September 2011 09:50:48 Henrik Størner wrote:
Hi, I have a question for all of you. xymongen and xymonnet currently reads the hosts.cfg file from disk when they generate the webpages or run the network tests. Ever since the "bbgen toolkit" days, these programs have supported an additional type of "include" statement in hosts.cfg / bb-hosts: "dispinclude" works like "include", but is recognized only by xymongen, and "netinclude" does the same for xymonnet. I am considering removing these options, since that would make it very simple to eliminate the need for xymongen and xymonnet to have access to the hosts.cfg file - they can just fetch it from xymond, which both of them need to talk to anyway.
I am not using these options, but in the very near future I probably need an elegant way to present limited views to different users. However, if xymond can expose sufficient information about page layouts (I haven't investigated the "secret" fields sufficiently) then I should be able to succeed without these features. Regards, Buchan