As I just found out, there was a glitch in the template that was used; I had the max and min the wrong way around (as a result of a past trial/error); I had -10 in the Min box and -14 in the Max box.
This threw the following block in the zenperfsnmp log > Failure instance: Traceback: rrdtool.error: min must be less than max in DS > definition > /opt/zenoss/Products/ZenUtils/Chain.py:54:success > /opt/zenoss/Products/ZenUtils/Chain.py:47:next > /opt/zenoss/lib/python/twisted/internet/defer.py:239:callback > /opt/zenoss/lib/python/twisted/internet/defer.py:304:_startRunCallbacks > --- <exception caught here> --- > /opt/zenoss/lib/python/twisted/internet/defer.py:317:_runCallbacks > /opt/zenoss/Products/ZenRRD/zenperfsnmp.py:658:storeValues > /opt/zenoss/Products/ZenRRD/zenperfsnmp.py:692:storeRRD > /opt/zenoss/Products/ZenRRD/RRDUtil.py:64:save > Personally, I consider such a stupid thing triggering the 13801 bogus requests a stupid but painful bug; it starts creating these gaping holes in all the graphs. However, I'd like some input as to whether this should be filed as bug? I've added that server along with another one and I am looking 1018 OIDs, definitely beats the crap out of the previous 13K. -------------------- m2f -------------------- Read this topic online here: http://community.zenoss.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19899#19899 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ zenoss-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
