Hi,
I'm trying to troubleshoot an issue with Cacti and some devices for which I'm trying to graph interface traffic. I'm using the Generic SNMP-enabled Host template. Cacti is version 0.8.7b.
The problem is that the graphs remain at a value of 0.0 (i.e. not NaN). The strange thing is that we have several of these (identical) devices and graphing works for most of them but it doesn't for a few of them. I've been trying to understand why it doesn't work for these few and, as yet, the only clue I have is that the devices for which my graphs aren't working seem to have a newer firmware version.
Now, I was inclined to think that this was an issue with SNMP and the new firmware on these devices but the strange thing is that snmpwalk and snmpget work fine:
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.x .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1393741892
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.y .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1565460502
where: x.x.x.x is a device which is working fine and x.x.x.y is a device for which the graphs don't work.
I've looked into this document: http://forums.cacti.net/about15136.html and tried most of the troubleshooting steps but everything seems fine as far as I can tell. Following is a snippet of output from rrdtool fetch for a device for which the graphs aren't working properly:
1343638500: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343638800: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343639100: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343639400: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343639700: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343640000: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343640300: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
1343640600: 0.0000000000e+00 0.0000000000e+00
I'd appreciate any help on this as I'm lost as to what investigate next.
Thanks,
Joe
Graphs for particular devices not graphing (values: 0.0)
Moderators: Developers, Moderators
- gandalf
- Developer
- Posts: 22383
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:46 am
- Location: Muenster, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Graphs for particular devices not graphing (values: 0.0)
As this are COUNTERs, it is important to know whether numbers change from polling interval to next interval.
Find the updated HowTo at 2nd link of my sig
R.
Find the updated HowTo at 2nd link of my sig
R.
Re: Graphs for particular devices not graphing (values: 0.0)
Hi,
Yes that looks like it:
Mon Jul 30 14:55:30 CEST 2012
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.x .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1157244805
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.y .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1565460502
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.x .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1851131349
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.y .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1565460502
So it seems that, even though the oid should be a counter, it's not updating...
Is there anyway around this?
Thanks,
Joe
Yes that looks like it:
Mon Jul 30 14:55:30 CEST 2012
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.x .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1157244805
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.y .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1565460502
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.x .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1851131349
[root@foo rra]# snmpget -c public -v2c x.x.x.y .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.10.101
IF-MIB::ifInOctets.101 = Counter32: 1565460502
So it seems that, even though the oid should be a counter, it's not updating...
Is there anyway around this?
Thanks,
Joe
- gandalf
- Developer
- Posts: 22383
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:46 am
- Location: Muenster, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Graphs for particular devices not graphing (values: 0.0)
As given by 2nd link of my sig, you should evaluate the results seen by Cacti next (set logging level to required verbosity level).
R.
R.
Re: Graphs for particular devices not graphing (values: 0.0)
Thanks! I'll look into that. I'll also check with the manufacturer to see why we're noticing this difference between different firmware versions.
Thanks again for your prompt help!
Joe
Thanks again for your prompt help!
Joe
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests