[Nagiosplug-devel] RE: performance data from plugins - does it exist?

[Subhendu Ghosh]

On 14 Sep 2002, Karl DeBisschop wrote:

<SNIP>
> 
> I do feel that performance data should be part of the formal 1.3.0
> release, although it's never been discussed to my knowlege. I just don't
> want to spend time logging performance data for every concievable
> variable on this pass, especailly if it requires tracking new timers and
> varibles for them, and other ancillary coding. I'd rather focus on
> getting a formal release that includes an acceptable level of detail
> done in a way that the most (all?) users and developers feel makes
> sense.
> 

I would prefer to make the performance data part of the 1.3.x release and 
release 1.3.0 with additional stable plugins.

It would also be useful to discuss the overall size of the retrun string 
and its impact in the nagios architecture.  We are currently limited by 
the size on the non-interleaved pipe message size for passively submitted 
results.  Do we want to differentiate plugins between active and passive 
(I would think not..)

I thinks if a list of parameters to be measured from the existing plugins 
could be developed (via contributions :) then we could decide on a base 
set of parameters and naming guidelines for the parameters.

>From a diskio perspective, I would like to minimize or coordinate diskio 
as much as possible for the perfdata - does this mean that nagios core 
would have to support aggregate perfdata in addition to aggregate status?

-- 

-sg



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf