Please file it as a bug, with your steps to reproduce. Just paste in
your description below and the stack trace, and that should be good
enough.
http://dev.zenoss.org/trac/
Thanks,
Matt Ray
Zenoss Community Manager
community.zenoss.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 15, 2008, at 2:48 AM, AsGF2MX wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
zenoss-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zenoss.org/mailman/listinfo/zenoss-users
