NetApp

Check_netapp3

Write a Review

Description:

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.)

Current Version

Last Release Date

June 4, 2009

Compatible With

Owner

Nagios Exchange

Copy Page Link Recommend Login to Add to Favorites
Project Files
FileDescription
check_netapp3.pl

check_netapp3.pl

Project Notes
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 (4) Add a Review
DISKUSED64 GB or TB
by elasticworms, April 30, 2019

How can have the result of check DISKUSED64 in GB or TB ?


NVRAM Check Needs some work
by ffranco, April 30, 2012

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)


Comment out warnings
by rrobert, August 31, 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)."


Good work
by plrunner, May 31, 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


Add a Review

You must be logged in to submit a review.

Thank you for your review!

Your review has been submitted and is pending approval.

Recommend

To:


From:


Thank you for your recommendation!

Your recommendation has been sent.

Page Sections
Project Overview Project Files Project Notes Reviews
Project Stats
Rating
4.4 (5)
Favorites
2
Views
120,314