[racktables-users] Re: Cacti support

  • From: David Comerford <davestyle@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: racktables-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:50:16 +0100

We're running quite an old version of Cacti in my organization for various
depressing reasons. Is there a minimum Cacti version requirement?
Thanks guys.

On 31 August 2011 06:34, Denis Ovsienko <infrastation@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> [...]
> > Nothing more... see
> > http://www.roedie.nl/downloads/misc/racktables-3.jpg
> >
> > When requesting the cacti tab of the object I see the following in the
> > access.log of the cacti server:
> >
> > 2001:67c:xxx:xx::x - - [31/Aug/2011:05:30:46 +0200] "GET
> > /graph_image.php?action=view&local_graph_id=1 HTTP/1.1" 200 4171 "-" "-"
> > 2001:67c:xxx:xx::x - - [31/Aug/2011:05:30:46 +0200] "POST
> > /graph_image.php?action=view&local_graph_id=1 HTTP/1.1" 302 85 "-" "-"
> > 2001:67c:xxx:xx::x - - [31/Aug/2011:05:30:46 +0200] "POST
> > /graph_image.php?action=view&local_graph_id=1 HTTP/1.1" 200 15358 "-"
> > "-"
>
> Thanks for diagnostics. So far it is clear, that Cacti authentication works
> and graph data is delivered to RackTables image proxy. The data is probably
> damaged on its way to RackTables HTTP client. Could you retry the IMG SRC
> URL again to tell if RackTables server HTTP response misses headers, body or
> both? Are there any extra bytes, which should not be there? In the
> RackTables server access log, what are HTTP response code and content-length
> for relevant requests (module=image&img=cactigraph)?
>
> --
>     Denis Ovsienko
>
>

Other related posts: