Sorry regarding the hijack. I thought I had created a new message and copied the list address into it.
Thank you, and yes Redhat uses a rather old net-snmp.
From: observium <observium-bounces@observium.org> on behalf of Tom Laermans <tom.laermans@powersource.cx>
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 9:13 AM
To: Observium Network Observation System
Subject: Re: [Observium] SNMP and Large FileSystems (100TB+)Hi Rhian,
First off, please don't hijack threads - this has nothing to do with mod_auth_kerb.
Second, yes, you need an snmpd supporting the high capacity storage tables. Net-SNMP supports this from 5.7 on, if you don't disable if via compile options, so an upgrade might be in order.
Tom
On 13/12/2015 14:41, Rhian Resnick wrote:
Good morning,
We recently noticed that SNMP is having difficulty handling large file sysystem. We have a 120TB XFS system that is reporting on 4.4TB and alerting because SNMP is reporting the wrong values.
snmpwalk -mALL -v2c -{COM} {HOST} hrStorageTable | grep 40HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.40 = INTEGER: 40HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.40 = OID: HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageFixedDiskHOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.40 = STRING: /homeHOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageAllocationUnits.40 = INTEGER: 4096 Bytes
HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.40 = INTEGER: 1186465536HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.40 = INTEGER: 1036605829HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.44 = INTEGER: 666446640Some forums have indicated this can be resolved by upgrading to 64 bit integers but I am not an SNMP expert.
Has anyone seen this behavior and if so how do we work around it? In the HPC world this is a small name space so I worry about monitoring storage on our Lustre FS.
Thanks
_______________________________________________ observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium
_______________________________________________ observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium