Exagrid-Plugin: negative values

[Meistercoach83]

Good Morning, I´m using the exagrid plugin with this check config:

/usr/lib/centreon/plugins//centreon_exagrid_snmp.pl --plugin=storage::exagrid::snmp::plugin --mode=server-usage --hostname=******* --snmp-version='******' --snmp-community='******' --warning-status='%{status} =~ /warning/i' --critical-status='%{status} =~ /error/i' --warning-retention-usage='85' --critical-retention-usage='95' --warning-landing-usage='85' --critical-landing-usage='95'

with that command I get the following returned infos: CRITICAL: Landing Usage Total: 76.40 TB Used: -42.54 TB (-55.68%) Free: 118.94 TB (155.68%)

How can the used space be negative? With the debug option it looks like this:

/usr/lib/centreon/plugins//centreon_exagrid_snmp.pl --plugin=storage::exagrid::snmp::plugin --mode=server-usage --hostname=172.16.253.1 --snmp-version='2c' --snmp-community='public' --warning-status='%{status} =~ /warning/i' --critical-status='%{status} =~ /error/i' --warning-retention-usage='85' --critical-retention-usage='95' --warning-landing-usage='85' --critical-landing-usage='95' --debug CRITICAL: Landing Usage Total: 76.40 TB Used: -42.54 TB (-55.68%) Free: 118.94 TB (155.68%) | 'landing_used'=-46771000000000B;0:71400000000000;0:79800000000000;0;84000000000000 'retention_used'=36723000000000B;0:70969900000000;0:79319300000000;0;83494000000000 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.1.0 = 84000 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.2.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.3.0 = 130771 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.4.0 = 886130522 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.1.0 = 83494 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.2.0 = 830000000 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.3.0 = 46771 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.4.0 = 886130522 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.5.0 = 32088 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.6.0 = 196110401 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.7.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.8.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.9.0 = 4634 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.10.0 = 747759077 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.11.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.12.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.13.0 = 4634 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.2.14.0 = 747759077 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.3.1.0 = 103665 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.3.2.0 = 529301438 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.3.3.0 = 32088 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.3.4.0 = 196110401 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.4.1.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.4.2.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.4.3.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.5.1.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.5.2.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.5.3.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.6.1.0 = 1 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.7.1.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.7.2.0 = 0 .1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.7.3.0 = 0

[garnier-quentin]

There is an issue with SNMP values. As you can see the space available is greater than the configured. Is it ok ?

.1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.1.0 = 84000 (egLandingSpaceConfiguredWholeGigabytes)
.1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.3.0 = 130771 (egLandingSpaceAvailableWholeGigabytes)

[lucie-dubrunfaut]

Hello :)

Without additional information we are not able to provide a solution or resolve a possible bug. So @Meistercoach83 if you still need a response / solution to this issue, can you take a look at Quentin question above?

[Meistercoach83]

Yes, i still need Support. What do you need to Help me?

[lucie-dubrunfaut]

Hello :)

According with Quentin's answer it seems that there is an issue with SNMP values itself egLandingSpaceAvailableWholeGigabytes > egLandingSpaceConfiguredWholeGigabytes and in the plugin the landing used is calculated this way: landing_used => $result->{egLandingSpaceConfiguredWholeGigabytes} * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 - $result->{egLandingSpaceAvailableWholeGigabytes} * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 see line171 in serverusage mode This lead to a negative value for the landing used.

In your case:

.1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.1.0 = 84000 (egLandingSpaceConfiguredWholeGigabytes : The amount of configured landing space scaled to GigaBytes (10^9) bytes)
.1.3.6.1.4.1.14941.4.1.3.0 = 130771 (egLandingSpaceAvailableWholeGigabytes : The amount of available landing space scaled to GigaBytes (10^9) bytes)

[Meistercoach83]

but how can i fix that?

i´m currently in holidays till the end of next week

[lucie-dubrunfaut]

Hello :)

I will find out if there are any proposed solutions from my colleagues for this SNMP issue. I will try to keep you informed.