{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/111","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/111/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/111/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/111/events","html_url":"https://github.com/mickem/nscp/issues/111","id":57702466,"number":111,"title":"Performance data warning/critical incorrect","user":{"login":"awiddersheim","id":3237256,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3237256?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim","html_url":"https://github.com/awiddersheim","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2015-02-14T18:48:59Z","updated_at":"2015-02-16T13:14:30Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I have noticed some weird issues with the warning/critical levels in the performance data. Specifically, I was doing things with `check_memory()` but other modules may be affected also.\r\n\r\nI am using the following version:\r\n\r\n```NSClient++, Version: 0.4.3.130 2015-02-11, Platform: x64```\r\n\r\nI am running the following:\r\n\r\n```check_memory show-all \"filter=type = 'physical'\" \"warning=used > 90%\"```\r\n\r\nHere is the performance data I get back:\r\n\r\n```Performance data: 'physical'=1.13817GB;3.5996;3.5996;0;3.99956 'physical %'=28%;89;89;0;100```\r\n\r\nThe first problem I see is that I only specified a warning level yet both a warning AND a critical level were specified in the performance data. So I'd expect the following:\r\n\r\n```'physical %'=28%;89;;0;100```\r\n\r\nSecond problem is the actual number of the warning level which is ```89```. I'd expect this to be ```90```. Even if I do ```\"warning=used >= 90%\"``` I sill get ```89```.\r\n\r\nPerhaps this is by design... but I'm hoping it is a bug. Seems off to me."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/comments/74506318","html_url":"https://github.com/mickem/nscp/issues/111#issuecomment-74506318","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/mickem/nscp/issues/111","id":74506318,"user":{"login":"awiddersheim","id":3237256,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3237256?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim","html_url":"https://github.com/awiddersheim","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/awiddersheim/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-02-16T13:14:30Z","updated_at":"2015-02-16T13:14:30Z","body":"Thanks for the explanation. If you are asking my opinion I'd say that this is an issue. Let me explain why. When we graph the performance data (using pnp4nagios) we will more times than not also graph the warning/critical thresholds as well and put the number at which those thresholds are configured on the graphs. We have a lot of people look at and use those graphs.\r\n\r\nIf that number is different than what my clients/customers/users are expecting they will think the checks and thresholds have been misconfigured. At which point I'd need to explain that it's just an \"oddity\" with the system or whatever.\r\n\r\nNot only is the number slightly off but it's also throwing back a critical threshold when I'm not actually setting one, which again will get graphed. This will inevitably bring up the same conversation when people look at the graphs and think \"this check shouldn't have a critical level\" and will come to me thinking there is some kind of configuration issue. It is not uncommon that we configured checks to not having warning/critical levels by design and for the graph to represent them would throw people off.\r\n\r\nI get how one can think it's a small issue and can understand that it is probably a pain to fix. Hopefully, I did an okay job of making a case as to why it's an issue coming from someone who has a lot of checks and a lot of users who will notice this type of thing."}}