Re: Q: monitoring attributes

[Dieter KlÃnter <dieter@dkluenter.de>]

Am Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:09:35 +0100
schrieb "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>:

> Hi!
> 
> I found out why I never was successful with cn=monitor: By default
> '*' attributes show almost nothing; you'll have to use '+' attributes
> (in my version at least). I'm not very happy with the decision,
> because you'll get the truely operational attributes also. If the
> whole subtree cn=Monitor is invisible in naming contexts, I see
> little reason to hide the "normal" attributes as operational in the
> whole subtree.
> 
> Seeing those operational atributes, I noticed that "creatorsName" and
> "modifiersName" are both present but have an empty value. That
> doesn't look very nice, especially as createTimestamp and
> modifyTimestamp do have proper values.

RFC-4512 requires that this attributes must be present in every entry.
> 
> Using monitoredObject for all monitored values gives a unique
> interface, but having all possible results in monitoredInfo is not
> very usable, especially if there's no description. For example (some
> attributes removed for brevity): --- dn: cn=Uptime,cn=Time,cn=Monitor
> structuralObjectClass: monitoredObject monitoredInfo: 153543
> hasSubordinates: FALSE
> ---
> It's not clear (denying the obvious) what the units of uptime are:
> seconds, minutes, etc. It seems to me that "monitoredType" or
> "monitoredInfoType" and "monitoredUnit" (for measurable infos) are
> missing.
> 
> Shouldn't "monitorCounter" be named "monitoredCounter" to use the
> same pattern as "monitoredInfo"?
> 
> I could not find the schema for the monitoring objects in any file.
> Can I retrieve a readable schema from openLDAP?

it is in the source code, see openldap/servers/slapd/back-monitor/README
and back-monitor.h

[...]

-Dieter

-- 
Dieter KlÃnter | Systemberatung
http://dkluenter.de
GPG Key ID:DA147B05
53Â37'09,95"N
10Â08'02,42"E