I can monitor by IP without issue. Always have been able to on multiple installs on multiple networks over several years.
On April 4, 2015 3:07:21 PM AKDT, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: >I stopped caring about Observium when someone said it wouldn’t monitor >something by IP address, it required both forward and reverse DNS. >Even though Mike tried to defend that. It’s “Soup Nazi” logic. >Everything else in the world accepts an IP address in place of a >hostname, I suspect you have to write extra code to NOT do that. > > >From: Jon Auer >Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 5:52 PM >To: Animal Farm >Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What Adam Armstrong of Observium thinks of WISPS > >Until I see evidence to the contrary (just did a svn up and no wisp >gear has been removed...) I'm treating that entire exchange as the >internet equivalent of some drunk (Smeg) walking up to you(Adam) in the >bar and grabbing your arm and saying have your wife dance with me. >You're like, that's her choice and she says no. Repeating as the night >goes on. Eventually maybe you snap, say some unkind things because you >want the drunk to get lost and he just isn't taking the hint. > >That wasn't the first IRC exchange between them and others. Adam's >volatility is well known but in this case I believe he was sorely >provoked. >We've all experienced the client from hell. Thing is, maybe some of us >are the client from hell. > >What happened in IRC after may help understand where he is coming >from... >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:18:33] While I completely >understand that you're the author and shit, and what you say goes. >period... wasn't that a bit of an overreaction? >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:18:56] BenA: you have no >fucking idea >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:19:05] I don't, it's true. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:06] these people will not >take no for an answer >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:07] they go on >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:08] and on >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:09] and on >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:10] and on >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:19:20] Couldn't you just, like, >look away from the screen? >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:23] BUT MUH SUPPORT, >MILLIONS OF USERS, PLZ >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:32] couldn't you? >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:19:38] Ask him if he wants to >pay. if he doesn't, ignore? >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:19:46] oh, they all say they >want to pay >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:19:49] Ah. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:20:10] but when they realise it >costs more than $5... >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:20:15] Right. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:20:31] the wireless industry >seems to be rammed full of overly entitled douches >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:20:48] whot hink it's totally >justified that we support evey bit of shitty kit they have >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:20:51] fucking wireless vendors >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:00] every new MODEL they >release has to come with an entirely new set of mibs >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:04] it's ridiculous >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:21:11] You're a victim of your >own success. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:23] and none of these people >will ever listen when you tell them >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:32] adn they just keep >coming back and coming back >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:35] he's asked here a few >times >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:40] and we've had these >conversations on the mailing list >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:21:44] and god knows what else >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:22:02] and you'd think >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:22:03] when someone says >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:22:07] "fuck off, it's not >going to happen" >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:22:13] you'd realise that was, >well, that >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:22:53] I guess he really sees the >advantages of Observium, and is keen for you to have further market >penetration... over your express wishes (-: >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:23:06] no, he's keen to have >his own pet hardware supported >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:23:12] That too. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:23:21] we already support 4 >different families of cambium kit >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:23:28] but apparently that >doesn't include the devices he has >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:23:44] and i'm sure if i >checked, we'd only have like 2-3 users using cambium kit >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:24:52] You could spend a few >dozen man months of eye-straining, back-breaking labour adding in some >kind of horribly complex and fucked up extensible API for 3rd party >MIBs, and then telling people they can add whatever the fuck >support/devices they like, but there's no support for it. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:25:06] or not >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:25:14] Party-pooper. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <BenA> [09:25:39] And people said you were a >nice guy. >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:25:46] rarely >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:25:55] and even more rarely in >here \o/ >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:26:49] we have 3 cambium ptp400 >devices and 5 cambium ptp800 devices >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:27:00] in our entire userbase >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:27:24] 1086 cambium canopy >devices >[2015-04-04T01:39:59-0500] <@adama> [09:27:31] but, ofc, he said they >weren't important and not to bother with them > > >On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > I had got the impression that he didn't even want user contributions. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: "Jon Auer" <[email protected]> > To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2015 2:59:53 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What Adam Armstrong of Observium thinks of WISPS > > >It's more than just OIDs, adding device support involves a fair amount >of fiddly little things. Finding/cropping icon, regex to match the >OS/device type to handle it correctly, logic to handle the >device-specific things, logic to work around whatever they broke in the >MIB (remember when Cambium returned strings instead of ints for some >counters?). Then more testing. > >That's what makes Observium more useful out of the box than something >like Cacti where you're adding OIDs onesey twosey to device templates. > > >I think a big part of his reaction is, if you watch IRC, for the past >few months to years there have been people asking for WISP features and >pretty much nobody in a place to write code to do it. My guess is he is >time constrained and would rather work on other things (hence >non-responsiveness to offers of money) combined with not wanting to >deal with what could be perceived as self-entitled communication from >some users. > > The hostile reaction to WISP gear: >CMMMicro is a switch that doesn't even use the switch MIB -> Work done >to support WISP devices doesn't pay off in helping support other >Enterprise/Wireline devices. > >Cambium is extra special because they version the PMP MIB against OS >rev instead of starting out with a well-designed MIB as spec and fixing >OS to match. The easy way out is to ignore that and use the latest but >what happens when Cambium updates something? Bug reports from users on >new OS complaining that something doesn't work. You update and now >there's bug reports from the users that want to stay on old OS for a >while. The hard way? Handle every OS rev differently/code gardening >responsibility? You just can't win. > > <I digress> >So, WISP gear, he doesn't need it and doesn't care. I need it and care >so I write what I need. I may not appreciate the politics of Observium >but I'm being pragmatic. I contributed what little Cambium PMP device >support there is in Observium currently and I have more devices I'd >like to see supported. If the time comes that my contributions are >turned away I'll look for another monitoring solution, not out of spite >but because I need to monitor all the things. > >There may come a time when I move to LibreNMS. They seem to have >openness & saying yes down but I want to see how they handle saying no >to extraneous things/feature creep beyond monitoring metrics (e.g. if >it were me, allow/keep rancid integration but just say no to >generalized IPAM). >You can't please everyone and who/how they choose to please will be >insightful. > </I digress> > >On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > >Do we know why Adam blows up whenever people specify OIDs they want to >track? I've never bothered to figure it out myself. He made it seem >like hte OID was such a small part of everything that needed to be >done. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Neil Lathwood" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:08:23 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What Adam Armstrong of Observium thinks of WISPS > > > On 31 March 2015 at 19:04, WaveDirect <[email protected]> wrote: > >Yeah you should accept at least equipment donations :) Some of us may >have spares we can part with and after you are done sell them to help >buy other products you want to support. > > >The donation of equipment is a huge ++++. It wouldn't be necessary to >send the kit anywhere just provide snmp access, that way we can see >what data is available and work on adding support. > > Thanks, > > Neil -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
