red conn lights in xymon
list Charles Dillard
Hello, I’m installing xymon 4.2.3 on a Dell 1950 with a Redhat RHEL 5 64 bit OS. I first install rrdtool-1.0.50-3.el5.rf.x86_64.rpm rrdtool-devel-1.0.50-3.el5.rf.x86_64.rpm pcre-8.01.zip then xymon-4.2.3.tar.gz After I start httpd and xymon, two aspects of monitoring fail: 1. the conn test is always red for the 90 or so servers we monitor and 2. the http [wget] test is white on the four web servers we run. We monitor both Windows 2003 servers and mostly Redhat AS 3 servers. The other monitoring tests like disk and cpu work. netstat –van shows port 1984 is up and listening. The output on the xymon startup is what I would call nominal. hobbit 4.2.0 has worked for years on a Redhat AS 3 server at our agency. We’re trying to upgrade here to RHEL 5. I’ve tried substituting hobbit 4.2.0 for xymon with the same results. The use of yum is not an option for installation on our USDOJ network. Any ideas on why I’m getting red? Charles T. Dillard Cell: XXX XXX XXXX Office: XXX XXX XXXX The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
list Buchan Milne
▸
On Wednesday, 5 May 2010 14:27:55 Charles Dillard wrote:
Hello, I’m installing xymon 4.2.3 on a Dell 1950 with a Redhat RHEL 5 64 bit OS. I first install rrdtool-1.0.50-3.el5.rf.x86_64.rpm rrdtool-devel-1.0.50-3.el5.rf.x86_64.rpm pcre-8.01.zip then xymon-4.2.3.tar.gz
IMHO, using packages makes a lot more sense than compiling from source ...
▸
After I start httpd and xymon, two aspects of monitoring fail: 1. the conn test is always red for the 90 or so servers we monitor and
Can you ping them from the host manually? What are you using for the ping test (see the FPING variable in hobbitserver.cfg)?
2. the http [wget] test is white on the four web servers we run.
Due to (1), network tests are suspended for hosts with active but failed conn test.
▸
We monitor both Windows 2003 servers and mostly Redhat AS 3 servers. The other monitoring tests like disk and cpu work.
These are done locally and reported to the server, whereas ping tests are run from the server by the bbtest task and reported to the server. Some server- related issues could cause problems here (such as inability to write temporary files).
▸
netstat –van shows port 1984 is up and listening. The output on the xymon startup is what I would call nominal. hobbit 4.2.0 has worked for years on a Redhat AS 3 server at our agency. We’re trying to upgrade here to RHEL 5. I’ve tried substituting hobbit 4.2.0 for xymon with the same results. The use of yum is not an option for installation on our USDOJ network.
I highly doubt that, yum can be used without "network", e.g. by local repos etc. Regards, Buchan
list Jerald Sheets
Interesting... I'd do it no other way than use source. Amazing how all our experiences formulate not only our IT "world view" but our practices as well. Off topic, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Carry on. :-) --- Jerald M. Sheets jr.
▸
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Buchan Milne <user-9b139aff4dec@xymon.invalid>wrote:
IMHO, using packages makes a lot more sense than compiling from source ...
list Ryan Novosielski
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I find compiling from source to be a considerable waste of time. In a scenario where I have none of the dependencies for Xymon, that means compiling each and every one of them (sometimes finding that you're missing a dependency whilst trying to compile another dependency). Also, you're left either putting everything in one directory, or having a complicated FHS-style install where it's basically impossible to go back and remove it should you want to later. Also, you're generally stuck patching your own software, which is also a hassle. I tend to get the feeling that the "from source" people are either old-fashioned (not a bad thing, just a way of doing things that perhaps used to be more necessary) or must have staffing levels way above mine. I certainly would say that one should know HOW to compile from source in a pinch, but that it's really just not necessary on many platforms.
▸
Jerald Sheets wrote:Interesting... I'd do it no other way than use source.
Amazing how all our experiences formulate not only our IT "world view"
but our practices as well.
Off topic, but I found it interesting nonetheless.
Carry on. :-)
---
Jerald M. Sheets jr.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Buchan Milne
<user-9b139aff4dec@xymon.invalid <mailto:user-9b139aff4dec@xymon.invalid>> wrote:
IMHO, using packages makes a lot more sense than compiling from
source ...
- -- - ---- _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _
|Y#| | | |\/| | \ |\ | | |Ryan Novosielski - Systems Programmer II |$&| |__| | | |__/ | \| _| |user-ae4522577e16@xymon.invalid - 973/972.0922 (2-0922) \__/ Univ. of Med. and Dent.|IST/CST - NJMS Medical Science Bldg - C630 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkvhtHMACgkQmb+gadEcsb76qACeIr+yVft07u32px7fAnudBIpf kuwAnA/451aL60Yv5h4REfEJ5hynR1yM =SFVj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
list Malcolm Hunter
▸
I find compiling from source to be a considerable waste of time. In a scenario where I have none of the dependencies for Xymon, that means compiling each and every one of them (sometimes finding that you're missing a dependency whilst trying to compile another dependency). Also, you're left either putting everything in one directory, or having a complicated FHS-style install where it's basically impossible to go back and remove it should you want to later. Also, you're generally stuck patching your own software, which is also a hassle. I tend to get the feeling that the "from source" people are either old-fashioned (not a bad thing, just a way of doing things that perhaps used to be more necessary) or must have staffing levels way above mine. I certainly would say that one should know HOW to compile from source in a pinch, but that it's really just not necessary on many platforms.
True in many cases but installing pre-requisites and compiling Xymon is so trivial, it's certainly better than using the very old packages that are provided by most distros. Malcolm -- Technical copy-editor & proofreader KDE Proofreading Team KDE British English Translation Team http://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=en_GB Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FriendlyAtheist "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
list Josh Luthman
I would rather use packages everywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't the end all. If you can't compile something...then you have a real problem. Xymon in particular has no packages I'm aware. I wrote that step by step guide so that everyone that has the ability to read and the slightly PC knowledge can get a Xymon server running. Josh Luthman Office: XXX-XXX-XXXX Direct: XXX-XXX-XXXX XXXX Wayne St Suite XXXX Troy, OH XXXXX “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill
▸
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Malcolm Hunter <user-b3e590ffeb6d@xymon.invalid>wrote:
I find compiling from source to be a considerable waste of time. In a scenario where I have none of the dependencies for Xymon, that means compiling each and every one of them (sometimes finding that you're missing a dependency whilst trying to compile another dependency). Also, you're left either putting everything in one directory, or having a complicated FHS-style install where it's basically impossible to go back and remove it should you want to later. Also, you're generally stuck patching your own software, which is also a hassle. I tend to get the feeling that the "from source" people are either old-fashioned (not a bad thing, just a way of doing things that perhaps used to be more necessary) or must have staffing levels way above mine. I certainly would say that one should know HOW to compile from source in a pinch, but that it's really just not necessary on many platforms.True in many cases but installing pre-requisites and compiling Xymon is so trivial, it's certainly better than using the very old packages that are provided by most distros. Malcolm -- Technical copy-editor & proofreader KDE Proofreading Team KDE British English Translation Team http://l10n.kde.org/team-infos.php?teamcode=en_GB Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FriendlyAtheist "Feel free" - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
list Buchan Milne
▸
On Wednesday, 5 May 2010 23:03:34 Malcolm Hunter wrote:
I find compiling from source to be a considerable waste of time. In a scenario where I have none of the dependencies for Xymon, that means compiling each and every one of them (sometimes finding that you're missing a dependency whilst trying to compile another dependency). Also, you're left either putting everything in one directory, or having a complicated FHS-style install where it's basically impossible to go back and remove it should you want to later. Also, you're generally stuck patching your own software, which is also a hassle. I tend to get the feeling that the "from source" people are either old-fashioned (not a bad thing, just a way of doing things that perhaps used to be more necessary) or must have staffing levels way above mine. I certainly would say that one should know HOW to compile from source in a pinch, but that it's really just not necessary on many platforms.True in many cases but installing pre-requisites and compiling Xymon is so trivial, it's certainly better than using the very old packages that are provided by most distros.
1)You should consider using distros that maintain their packages better 2)If you can't, you should consider whether it is more beneficial to compile the software once, and deploy the tested package to all 200 or 1000 or more servers, instead of having different people install the software from source with possibly different options. This becomes more important if there are any non-trivial changes (patches to fix minor bugs etc.) 3)Using packages also means you don't need a full toolchain on internet-facing production servers, and means it is so much easier to do integrity checking of sensitive files. BTW, the packages I have at http://staff.telkomsa.net/packages/ are only a small portion of the repository we use internally ... Regards, Buchan
list Buchan Milne
▸
On Wednesday, 5 May 2010 23:07:40 Josh Luthman wrote:
I would rather use packages everywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't the end all. If you can't compile something...then you have a real problem. Xymon in particular has no packages I'm aware.
Would you like to qualify that further? Some distros supply up-to-date packages, and for some distros, 3rd-party packages are available ...