Search Exchange

Search All Sites

Nagios Live Webinars

Let our experts show you how Nagios can help your organization.

Contact Us

Phone: 1-888-NAGIOS-1
Email: sales@nagios.com

Login

Remember Me

Check_netapp3

Rating
4 votes
Favoured:
2
Hits
110328
Files:
FileDescription
check_netapp3.plcheck_netapp3.pl
Network Monitoring Software - Download Nagios XI
Log Management Software - Nagios Log Server - Download
Netflow Analysis Software - Nagios Network Analyzer - Download
An updated version of the original check_netapp script written in perl to use SNMP queries to check a netapp for all sorts of status info (read the helpdoc within the script for more info.)
An updated version of the original check_netapp and check_netapp3 scripts written in perl.

Similar to its predecessor, it can check netapp SNMP status on a number of variables. The logic has been revamped and the script set to allow for simple expansion of new checks (like qtree status)

Inside the script is a hash of hash that stores all the config data for the variable to check.
Reviews (3)
All the checks are great. I've been using it for a week now and replaced all my other checks to NetApp appliances. However, the only problem I see is NVRAM. According to the MIB file, a value of 0 and 9 are good. Anything between is not good. I haven't found a way to get an ok back if the values 0 and 9 are reported.

I tried to use the NAGIOS standard of -c 2:8 but I don't see it working. Has anybody run into this and been able to overcome it?

Here is what the MIB for NetApp reports.
ok(1),
partiallyDischarged(2),
fullyDischarged(3),
notPresent(4),
nearEndOfLife(5),
atEndOfLife(6),
unknown(7),
overCharged(8),
fullyCharged(9)
byrrobert, August 25, 2011
Comment out the "use warnings;". Ran fine from the command line, but with both that and "use strict;" as a Nagios plug-in it returned the error, "(Service check did not exit properly)."
byplrunner, May 18, 2010
The fix for the "less then 0" returned values does not work if running the script on 32bit architecture though. :-P

I fixed that by using (2**32) instead of (1