On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Matthew Dempsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Vincent Bernat <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe it would be better to implement standard MIB like >> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB. > > snmpd already supports HOST-RESOURCES-MIB. > > Seth, does your diff expose any new information that's not already > available via snmpd? If not, I think we'd prefer to stick with > standard MIBs where possible. I implemented UCD-DISKIO-MIB only > because I couldn't find any existing MIB that was a good fit for disk > IO stats. (Arguably it might go under the interface statistics since > you can think of SCSI as just a specialized network protocol, but I > wasn't sure if that would fly and UCD-DISKIO-MIB was less work.)
I kind of thought the UCD-SNMP-MIB was fairly standard and/or widespread, but perhaps not? At any rate, it does add some value, I think. * HR-MIB includes hrProcessorLoad which is a percentage-based value for each CPU (if I'm reading the MIB right) for the one-minute timeframe. UCD-SNMP presents 1-, 5-, and 15-minute aggregate values, which may be more useful. * HR-MIB, under the hrStorage* attributes, includes free and used values for memory, but doesn't get any more granular than that. UCD-SNMP tries to break it down a bit further. * UCD-SNMP includes a bunch of CPU stats that I'm only starting to look at (the third "blank graph" in my monitoring templates) that I can't find in a walk against base snmpd. Those were going to be in diff number next. So yes, I think it does provide some value over what's already in there, but that's just the opinion of a guy scratching a proverbial itch.
