> -----Original Message----- > From: Cristian-Andrei Niculae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:19 AM > To: Beeton, Carolyn (CAR:9D60) > Cc: Spitzer, Andy (BL60:9D30); Steinmann, Martin (BL60:2500); > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] XECS-1316: alarm when HD is full > > Carolyn Beeton wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spitzer, Andy (BL60:9D30) > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:05 PM > To: Beeton, Carolyn (CAR:9D60); Steinmann, Martin > (BL60:2500); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] XECS-1316: alarm when HD is full > > Woof! > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:58:09 -0400, Beeton, Carolyn > (CAR:9D60) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That is what mrtg does; > > > Yes. > > > > we're already using it; > > > No. It's an optional componant. It's optional > because there > is a large performance penalty for running it > (the mrtg JPG > generating parts, not the snmp parts). It > isn't recommended > for small underpowered systems (Pingtel's > existing hardware > base, for example). > > > > why not take advantage of its threshold > monitoring as well? > > > Because it's overkill, and relies on an > optional componant. > > --Woof! > > > > > Could we make the expensive part of mrtg optional, and > continue to use > it for basic monitoring? > > > I think it actually is optional. By default, mrtg does not > monitor anything and does not generate any graphs, and as I > understand from Woof, that's the performance penalty. > Right now mrtg isn't even started when it doesn't monitor > anything, but this is easy to change. > > Andrei > > > What I mean is to make mrtg manditory and start it always, but make the graph part optional. Can we do that? (so we make the mrtg and snmp services required, but rddtool optional?)
Carolyn _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
