Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > Jason, yes, that is the result of the bounty offer. > > I have not had a chance to play with it, but the offer included a > requirement to upstream into cacti and provide a working example. > For reasons I can't explain

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Jason, yes, that is the result of the bounty offer. I have not had a chance to play with it, but the offer included a requirement to upstream into cacti and provide a working example. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Jason

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 03/15/2018 02:35 PM, Jason Azze via devel wrote: Sanjeev, was this template created in response to your bounty? I finally worked through getting ntpsnmpd up and talking to AgentX on my test machine, but all of my Cacti graphs from netniV's template come up NaN. Ian, could you recommend

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > Please see > > https://github.com/netniV/cacti-templates/tree/master/NTP > Sanjeev, was this template created in response to your bounty? I finally worked through getting ntpsnmpd up and talking to AgentX on my test

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 03/02/2018 03:47 PM, Hal Murray via devel wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if we had added something interesting. I'm pretty sure I have added things. The only question is did we fill in a gap in classic and/or will ntpsnmpd do the right thing if it encounters something like that.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Eric said: >> I could imagine that we have tweaked mode6 enough to be interesting. > There's really only one possible point of breakage - driver IDs for > reclocks. I think we're safe there. It wouldn't surprise me if we had added something interesting. I'm pretty sure I have added things.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Hal Murray via devel : > I could imagine that we have tweaked mode6 enough to be interesting. There's really only one possible point of breakage - driver IDs for reclocks. I think we're safe there. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond My work is

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 03/01/2018 05:54 PM, Mark Atwood wrote: > ntpsnmpd should be it's own Debian package, please.  It's useful to both > NTPsec and to NTP Classic installations. Unless this is going to be actively supported and tested upstream, I'm not interested in supporting that combination. I'm going a

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Please see https://github.com/netniV/cacti-templates/tree/master/NTP On 27 Feb 2018 7:45 pm, "Sanjeev Gupta" wrote: Apologies. I checked an hour ago, and the guy who assured me that we were using 'native' SNMP has come back saying he setup the cacti script that talks over

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 03/01/2018 07:40 PM, Hal Murray via devel wrote: Mark Atwood said: ntpsnmpd should be it's own Debian package, please. It's useful to both NTPsec and to NTP Classic installations. Has anybody tried it with NTP Classic? Do we have a classic server running that we can test against?

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

ntpsnmpd should be it's own Debian package, please. It's useful to both NTPsec and to NTP Classic installations. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:45 AM Sanjeev Gupta via devel wrote: > Apologies. > > I checked an hour ago, and the guy who assured me that we were using > 'native'

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Apologies. I checked an hour ago, and the guy who assured me that we were using 'native' SNMP has come back saying he setup the cacti script that talks over ntpq I have posted a bounty offer on the cacti forum. Apologies for raising hopes. On 27 Feb 2018 7:40 pm, "Jason Azze via devel"

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Richard Laager via devel wrote: > On 02/26/2018 06:16 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: >> Richard, I am using cacti. > > That's what I was hoping to hear, since I also run Cacti. Are you > willing to share your templates? I'm also a Cacti user, though

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

> Related to point 2; do you have rough numbers of how long / many instances of this have been running? A few weeks now on at least one. You may recall I had a bug report about IPv6 addresses. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 2:08

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/26/2018 06:13 PM, Sanjeev Gupta via devel wrote: Hi, For what it is worth, I am running the ntpsnmpd code on a number of debian and ubuntu machines for some time, including one with an actual GPS.  No issues so far. I just like to see graphs. Hooray! Someone is using the code! 1.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/26/2018 06:16 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > Richard, I am using cacti. That's what I was hoping to hear, since I also run Cacti. Are you willing to share your templates? 1) That'd probably be good for the project in general. 2) That would give me a way to test, both short-term and long-term,

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

(apologies for the top posts) Richard, I am using cacti. Have been planning to add it to observium as well, will try tonight. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Richard Laager wrote: > On 02/26/2018 06:13

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/26/2018 06:13 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > For what it is worth, I am running the ntpsnmpd code on a number of > debian and ubuntu machines for some time, including one with an actual > GPS.  No issues so far. > > I just like to see graphs. What are you using to graph the NTP SNMP data? --

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Hi, For what it is worth, I am running the ntpsnmpd code on a number of debian and ubuntu machines for some time, including one with an actual GPS. No issues so far. I just like to see graphs. -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:09

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/26/2018 09:50 AM, Mark Atwood via devel wrote: > Does the Debian packaging have it be it's own package? It's unclear to me what exactly you're asking, so I'll give various information which may help: No NTPsec ntpsnmpd has shipped in a released version, so the Debian package doesn't do

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

ntpsnmpd is now fully part of the build. Manpage installs properly. make-tarball includes it (mostly because it slurps up everything). -- /"In the end; what separates a Man, from a Slave? Money? Power? No. A Man Chooses, a Slave Obeys."/ -- Andrew Ryan /"Utopia cannot precede the Utopian.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/25/2018 07:18 PM, Hal Murray via devel wrote: Is there a HOWTO that tells me how to set things up? I'll get to work on that. There may be two targets for that document. One is SNMP wizards who don't know much about ntpd. The other is NTP wizards who don't know much about SNMP.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/26/2018 09:50 AM, Mark Atwood via devel wrote: Does waf build it by default? Does the Debian packaging have it be it's own package? It is built as part of the other python utilities. The manpage isn't part of the build yet as I do not know which section it should go in. -- /"In the

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Re ntpsnmpd My inclination is to include it, but document it as experimental, but also document in the release announcement as worth trying. Does waf build it by default? Does the Debian packaging have it be it's own package? ..m On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 5:18 PM Hal Murray via devel

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

> You need to be running an SNMP daemon and an NTP daemon. I've got plenty of ntp servers to experiment with. >> Is there a HOWTO that tells me how to set things up? > I'll get to work on that. There may be two targets for that document. One is SNMP wizards who don't know much about ntpd.

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/25/2018 04:39 PM, Hal Murray via devel wrote: devel@ntpsec.org said: The only real blocker that I can see at this time is the need for broad testing. [reiteration of me requesting testers / reviewers goes here.] Is there a HOWTO that tells me how to set things up? I'll get to work on

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 02/25/2018 04:43 PM, Eric S. Raymond via devel wrote: Gary E. Miller via devel : On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:02:00 -0600 Ian Bruene via devel wrote: [...] OTOH, people will not test it until it is easy to test. So I'd suggest putting it in 1.0.1, and

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Gary E. Miller via devel : > On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:02:00 -0600 > Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > > > The only real blocker that I can see at this time is the need for > > broad testing. [reiteration of me requesting testers / reviewers goes > > here.] > >

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

devel@ntpsec.org said: > The only real blocker that I can see at this time is the need for broad > testing. [reiteration of me requesting testers / reviewers goes here.] Is there a HOWTO that tells me how to set things up? Actually, I need something before that. Why is it interesting? What

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Yo Ian! On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 16:02:00 -0600 Ian Bruene via devel wrote: > The only real blocker that I can see at this time is the need for > broad testing. [reiteration of me requesting testers / reviewers goes > here.] OTOH, people will not test it until it is easy to test.