Xymon Mailing List Archive search

Log sizes

7 messages in this thread

list Kevin Hanrahan · Sat, 5 Mar 2005 18:02:24 -0500 ·
Henrik,
 I was looking at the size of the logs and some of them are quite large. The
largest is the larrd-status.log which has lots of entries like this:

2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/disk,E.rrd: illegal attempt to update using
time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one second
step)
s 1110063217 (minimum one second step)
2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/users.rrd: illegal attempt to update using
time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one second
step)
2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/disk,C.rrd: illegal attempt to update using
time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one second
step)
2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/disk,E.rrd: illegal attempt to update using
time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one second
step)


1) what does this mean?

2) Other than troubleshooting, are the logs used for any other function?
Can I delete them?


Thanks

Kevin 

Note:  The information contained in this email and in any attachments is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  The recipient should check this email and
any attachments for the presence of viruses.  Sender accepts no liability
for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by this email. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and delete the email from your computer.  This e-mail is and any
response to it will be unencrypted and, therefore, potentially unsecure.
Thank you.  NOVA Information Systems, Inc.
list Henrik Størner · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 07:46:15 +0100 ·
quoted from Kevin Hanrahan
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:02:24PM -0500, user-fd47fec4b039@xymon.invalid wrote:
Henrik,
 I was looking at the size of the logs and some of them are quite large. The
largest is the larrd-status.log which has lots of entries like this:

2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/disk,E.rrd: illegal attempt to update using
time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one second
step)
1) what does this mean?
This means that an update of the RRD file failed. The actual text
describing the error is provided by the rrdtool library - in this
case, it refused to update the file because it's been less than one
second since the last update.

So how can it happen that it tries to update the same RRD file twice
in a second ? I've seen it mostly with data from network tests,
e.g. if you happen to have the same host or test listed twice in your
bb-hosts file. With client reports (cpu, disk, ..) it can happen if
you have two clients reporting with the same name. Or it may be a bug
in the hobbit larrd handler, so it mistakenly sees the same data
twice.
2) Other than troubleshooting, are the logs used for any other function?
No.
Can I delete them?
Yes, but they are kept open by the various hobbitd* processes
running. hobbitlaunch and hobbitd will re-open the logs when you send
them a SIGHUP, but the various hobbitd_* modules don't. I'll get that
fixed.


Regards,
Henrik
list Kevin Hanrahan · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:14:28 -0500 ·
Thanks, 
 I can probably say it is no bug. I do have a few hosts listed twice. I was
trying to build different views for different departments. I now think this
is the wrong approach and I am supposed to use pagesets??...is that correct?

KEvin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid] 
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 1:46 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Log sizes
Importance: Low
quoted from Henrik Størner

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 06:02:24PM -0500, user-fd47fec4b039@xymon.invalid wrote:
Henrik,
 I was looking at the size of the logs and some of them are quite 
large. The largest is the larrd-status.log which has lots of entries like
this:

2005-03-05 17:53:37 RRD error updating
/home/hobbit/data/rrd/satlcwr01/disk,E.rrd: illegal attempt to update 
using time 1110063217 when last update time is 1110063217 (minimum one 
second
step)
1) what does this mean?
This means that an update of the RRD file failed. The actual text describing
the error is provided by the rrdtool library - in this case, it refused to
update the file because it's been less than one second since the last
update.

So how can it happen that it tries to update the same RRD file twice in a
second ? I've seen it mostly with data from network tests, e.g. if you
happen to have the same host or test listed twice in your bb-hosts file.
With client reports (cpu, disk, ..) it can happen if you have two clients
reporting with the same name. Or it may be a bug in the hobbit larrd
handler, so it mistakenly sees the same data twice.
2) Other than troubleshooting, are the logs used for any other function?
No.
Can I delete them?
Yes, but they are kept open by the various hobbitd* processes running.
hobbitlaunch and hobbitd will re-open the logs when you send them a SIGHUP,
but the various hobbitd_* modules don't. I'll get that fixed.


Regards,
Henrik
list Henrik Størner · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 17:22:14 +0100 ·
quoted from Kevin Hanrahan
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:14:28AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
 I can probably say it is no bug. I do have a few hosts listed twice. I was
trying to build different views for different departments. I now think this
is the wrong approach and I am supposed to use pagesets??...is that correct?
It's allright to have hosts listed twice, as long as only one host has
the network definitions set.

I don't know how well tools like "bb-fetch" handles hosts that are
defined twice; perhaps they will pull the status twice and send both
reports off to Hobbit, which would also trigger this message.


Henrik
list Kevin Hanrahan · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:41:46 -0500 ·
OK, but I thought I saw a reference in a past mail to something called
pagesets. Is this something that I can use to build different views...say,
for instance, an executive view to show critical apps that would take
systems previously defined under other system-subsets and combine them for
an overall application view? Is there info in the man pages?
quoted from Henrik Størner

KEvin  

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid] 
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:22 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Log sizes
Importance: Low

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:14:28AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
 I can probably say it is no bug. I do have a few hosts listed twice. 
I was trying to build different views for different departments. I now 
think this is the wrong approach and I am supposed to use pagesets??...is
that correct?
It's allright to have hosts listed twice, as long as only one host has the
network definitions set.

I don't know how well tools like "bb-fetch" handles hosts that are defined
twice; perhaps they will pull the status twice and send both reports off to
Hobbit, which would also trigger this message.


Henrik
list Henrik Størner · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 18:01:34 +0100 ·
quoted from Kevin Hanrahan
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:41:46AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
OK, but I thought I saw a reference in a past mail to something called
pagesets. Is this something that I can use to build different views...say,
for instance, an executive view to show critical apps that would take
systems previously defined under other system-subsets and combine them for
an overall application view? Is there info in the man pages?
Yes, the idea with pagesets is that you can group your hosts any way
you like - so that the view people have of the hosts is customized to
the way they work, instead of having a single view of all
hosts. E.g. where I work there is one view where we group servers by
customer - this is used by the people responsible for the customer
contact - and another view where the servers are grouped by OS - this
is used by our second-line support group.

Pagesets have existed for a long time, and are handled entirely by the
bbgen tool. There's a description of this in the bbgen man-page (look
for the "Building alternate pagesets" section.


Regards,
Henrik
quoted from Kevin Hanrahan
KEvin  
-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:22 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Log sizes
Importance: Low

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:14:28AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
 I can probably say it is no bug. I do have a few hosts listed twice. > I was trying to build different views for different departments. I now > think this is the wrong approach and I am supposed to use pagesets??...is
that correct?
It's allright to have hosts listed twice, as long as only one host has the
network definitions set.

I don't know how well tools like "bb-fetch" handles hosts that are defined
twice; perhaps they will pull the status twice and send both reports off to
Hobbit, which would also trigger this message.


Henrik

-- 

Henrik Storner
list Kevin Hanrahan · Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:06:39 -0500 ·
Nice! I will check it out...and I may have a few questions later.

Thanks
quoted from Henrik Størner

KEvin

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid] Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 12:02 PM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Log sizes


On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:41:46AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
OK, but I thought I saw a reference in a past mail to something called pagesets. Is this something that I can use to build different views...say, for instance, an executive view to show critical apps that would take systems previously defined under other system-subsets and combine them for an overall application view? Is there info in the man pages?
Yes, the idea with pagesets is that you can group your hosts any way you
like - so that the view people have of the hosts is customized to the way
they work, instead of having a single view of all hosts. E.g. where I work
there is one view where we group servers by customer - this is used by the
people responsible for the customer contact - and another view where the
servers are grouped by OS - this is used by our second-line support group.

Pagesets have existed for a long time, and are handled entirely by the bbgen
tool. There's a description of this in the bbgen man-page (look for the
"Building alternate pagesets" section.


Regards,
Henrik
KEvin

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Stoerner [mailto:user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 11:22 AM
To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
Subject: Re: [hobbit] Log sizes
Importance: Low

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 11:14:28AM -0500, Kevin Hanrahan wrote:
 I can probably say it is no bug. I do have a few hosts listed > twice.
I was trying to build different views for different departments. I now > think this is the wrong approach and I am supposed to use
pagesets??...is
that correct?
It's allright to have hosts listed twice, as long as only one host has the network definitions set.

I don't know how well tools like "bb-fetch" handles hosts that are defined twice; perhaps they will pull the status twice and send both reports off to Hobbit, which would also trigger this message.


Henrik

-- 
Henrik Storner


Note:  The information contained in this email and in any attachments is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in
reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  The recipient should check this email and
any attachments for the presence of viruses.  Sender accepts no liability
for any damages caused by any virus transmitted by this email. If you have
received this email in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and delete the email from your computer.  This e-mail is and any
response to it will be unencrypted and, therefore, potentially unsecure.
Thank you.  NOVA Information Systems, Inc.