Jon, Simply disable alerting on those ports. Problem solved. This is how you configure access switches that frequently have things plugged in / unplugged but you still want metrics when they are active.
On April 4, 2015 3:22:05 PM AKDT, Jon Auer <[email protected]> wrote: >Fair enough, there are soup nazi aspects, though I've come to >appreciate >them after I got past my initial surprise. Ports that are enabled but >unused being in alarm was the big one for me. > >Also, it does not require reverse DNS, only forward. I suspect syslog >collection needs reverse DNS to match up with hosts but I don't use >that... > >There are good non-soup-nazi reasons to require hostnames as >identifiers >instead of IPs, not the least of which is if you're using IPs now you >make >IPv6 compatability a problem. I could go on about the many benefits of >hostname as device ID as opposed to IP or integer but I'm not trying to >sell anything :) > > >On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 6:07 PM, 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 <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 5:52 PM >> *To:* Animal Farm <[email protected]> >> *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.
