[Release] Checkmk stable release 2.3.0p27

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

I am not sure I fully understand.

1. The service you want to be ignored in called exactly ‘corosync-qdevice.service’?
2. Even though you defined it in the rule, it’s still shown as Failed?

How it works is that if a service is matched by the regex pattern defined in the rule, it will be added to services_organised[“excluded”]. In your case, it may not be picked up because the of the ‘.’ in the pattern.

[andreas-doehler (Andreas)]

@lracic

The service you want to be ignored in called exactly ‘corosync-qdevice.service’?

Yes

@lracic

Even though you defined it in the rule, it’s still shown as Failed?

Yes

As it is not included inside the list ‘services_organised[“excluded”]’.
That’s why also your modification shows a critical.

@lracic

of the ‘.’ in the pattern.

Then there some other things are broken as every service has a “.” in the name.

[Bastian82 (Bastian)]

“.” matches every character in regex, so “.” should be matched too?

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

Okay, thanks! That gives some room to investigate further.
The funny thing is - This check actually never worked as designed. For the failed services it always had an OK state, which should not have been the case.

Give me a couple of hours and I will come back to you with something.

Thanks for the help!

[andreas-doehler (Andreas)]

@lracic

The funny thing is - This check actually never worked as designed. For the failed services it always had an OK state, which should not have been the case.

That’s wrong - it worked as it should. If you had a failed service the check goes critical. If you have a failed service and set this service to ignore than it was OK.
What should not have worked before? I have around 3k Linux machines here today and it is working fine.

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

Hey @andreas-doehler,
Would you mind having a super short call? Looks like you are right, but I want to understand why the service is not included in 'services_organised[“excluded”].
Thanks!

[andreas-doehler (Andreas)]

Short conclusion of our call is.

• the mkp does the right thing
• the existing systemd service summary has a problem with compiling and comparing of regex expressions
• this regex problem needs also to be fixed before the check will work in a correct way

[Glowsome (Michael Honkoop)]

Due to the fact of above i will postpone upgrading to said version.
Even tho a patch ( in the form of an .MKP) has been provided i think its better to wait for a/the next release.

• Glowsome

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

Hey Andreas,
Would you mind testing this MKP out?
systemd_units-0.0.2.mkp (7.9 KB)
This one should ideally address all of the issues you mentioned in your comment.

Thanks!

[andreas-doehler (Andreas)]

Looks good - no error message on a host where the regex problem was existing.
Now it shows 1 failed and 1 ignored service and stays OK as the failed service is the ignored one. I will have a look today on a bigger system if it is the same there.

[Bastian82 (Bastian)]

@Bastian82

What happens with this mkp installed, when the error is fixed in p28? Should it be removed manually then?

Thanks for your help! But I still dont know how to handle this hotfixes

Regards,
Bastian

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

Hey Bastian,

As soon as I know in which version the hotfix will end up, I will let you know.

Best,
Luka

[lracic (Luka Racic)]

Hello everyone!

Just wanted to let you know that the fix (the code from the newest MKP) will be available with 2.3.0p28. The release is scheduled for today/tomorrow.

If you are using the MKP, once you upgrade to p28, you can disable it.

Thank you for the help and sorry for any inconvenience caused by this!

Best,
Luka