Graphite-Module: Perfdata with dot in label gets split

Icinga Web Modules Visualization, Metrics & Reporting
1

Hi all,

just found a problem with graphite and/or the graphite module.

Some checks don’t display graphs for the perf data they collect.
Here is one example:
image

The label name has a dot in the name (blabla_backup.bak size).

The normal behavior is that special characters and spaces are replaced by an underscore when creating the folder structure.
When there is a dot in the perf data label this does not seem to work, as I get the following folder structure for this check:
/var/lib/graphite/whisper/icinga2/HOSTNAME/services/SERVICENAME/CHECKCOMMAND/perfdata/PART-BEFORE-THE-DOT/PART-AFTER-THE-DOT/*.wsp files

e.g. for the screenshot above
/var/lib/graphite/whisper/icinga2/HOSTNAME/services/file_size_Tibros_172_backup/nrpe/perfdata/tibros172_backup/bak_size/value.wsp
-----------------------^^^^------------------ ^^^^
I have found this entry in the issue tracker on github, which is about an equal problem with dots in the check command:

Though the fix of this bug does not seem to help for the perf data label.

I’m using a git clone of the master from yesterday, so it should all be up-to-date.

My question:
Can I edit some file or change anything or is this something for the issue tracker as well?

Thanks and greetings
log1c

2

Hi,

allowing subtrees with dots in labels was a heavily discussed feature request and now sits there since 2.4 or so. I don’t think that the linked GitHub issue is related, since the problem is different - the module would need to know the exact metric path now being multiple levels down.

Since I don’t know about the implementation details, a new issue on GitHub is a good idea :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Michael

3

Uhm, on the modules github I assume :smiley: :confused: ? Asking because you mentioned a feature request of icinga(web)?!

4

Yeah, the core parses the metrics and sends them to Graphite resulting in that path storage. Core won’t be changed, the module should be able to handle it with more nested wildcard searches. Not sure if that’s a performance hogger though.

1 Like
5

Issue created: