[rrd-users] Additional "Unknown"-Value

n1LL3 Christian.Michel at it-novum.com
Mon Jun 15 13:36:11 CEST 2009

oetiker wrote:
> yes ... and if component C or D break you would want to have
> different states for this too, so that the user can see what the
> exact cause of the break was ... I'm afraid you will have to store
> this kind of information outside rrdtool ... as rrdtool is not
> realy siuted to store arbitrary information from the way it is
> designed ...
> fact is, you have no data for the given periode, hence you can not
> charge your customers for it ... in dubio pro customer ... for
> billing purposes I would set 'unknown' to 'zero' then you are on
> the safe side, and you have a good incentive to make sure your
> monitoring is rock solid ....
> cheers
> tobi

Hello Tobi,

we don´t want to have the states inside of the RRD. For these we work with
thresholds outside of it.

What we want is a value, what we can give to the RRD with an update-command,
so the RRD knows that here was a real breakdown and it should not backfill
here. You mentioned in your first post that we should set the mrhb very
small, that the graph will break when only one check couldn´t get
At first we thought that this could solve our problem.
But in my second post you can see a couple of reasons why we couldn´t do it
like that. Because when there is for e.g. a system-latency and the data
would come in some seconds too late, the graph will show a break, where
actually no break was. 


View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Additional-%22Unknown%22-Value-tp3042052p3079800.html
Sent from the RRDtool Users Mailinglist mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the rrd-users mailing list