-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Log temperature from juniper devices #2364
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was done so sensors are collected from all the MIBs listed in JUNIPER_NETWORKS_INC line in the config instead of stopping at the first one where it finds any sensors. This will impact all sensor MIBs, so I'm wondering 1) is there a reason why it should stop after finding sensors in one MIB? 2) If so, ideas for config that will allow only Juniper devices to collect sensors from multiple MIBs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Very good point. The juniper chassis error counts will also need to look into two different MIBs if we are to support all juniper equipment that has these counters.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the main reason is that some of the first devices this code was tested
on would report the same sensors in multiple MIBs (i.e. the sensors reported in
a proprietary MIB would also appear in
ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB
, and there is nogeneric way of determining that these records represent the same thing).
Naw. I think the original idea is a bit defeatist. If a device wants to report
multiple versions of the same sensors, that's not our problem, that's the
vendor's problem (and a little bit, the user's: Now ipdevpoll will spend twice
the time collecting data from this device, and twice the storage space to
persist it - but hey, storage is cheap these days).
So, IMO: It's a good idea to remove the
break
statement!There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hmpf wrote:
The point is good, but I don't see how it related to the ongoing alert count
collection feature. It's unlikely this will touch the sensors framework at all
(unless you plan to also keep time series data of alert counts).