Hi,
I'm currently in the process of setting up Zabbix for monitoring our network environment but have run into an issue regarding Discovery Rules and Actions.
My current Discovery Rule setup is as follows:
Using SNMP I discover the device hostname and the device type name. My Discovery Action looks as follows:
Unfortunately Zabbix is not able to correctly parse the received values from 2 indiviual checks. Removing either one resolves the issue and the device is discovered as expected, however both checks are necessary for us to correctly add the device in our system.
I'm not the only one facing this issue:
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/zabbix-...sing-snmp-oids
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/zabbix-...to-host-groups
An envisioned workaround would be to bind the received value check in a discovery rule to a specific discovery check. Attempting to do this manually using a custom type of calculation does unfortunately not work.
I have also attached a log of the discover process (with all sensitive information removed) to this post.
I'm currently in the process of setting up Zabbix for monitoring our network environment but have run into an issue regarding Discovery Rules and Actions.
My current Discovery Rule setup is as follows:
Using SNMP I discover the device hostname and the device type name. My Discovery Action looks as follows:
Unfortunately Zabbix is not able to correctly parse the received values from 2 indiviual checks. Removing either one resolves the issue and the device is discovered as expected, however both checks are necessary for us to correctly add the device in our system.
I'm not the only one facing this issue:
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/zabbix-...sing-snmp-oids
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/zabbix-...to-host-groups
An envisioned workaround would be to bind the received value check in a discovery rule to a specific discovery check. Attempting to do this manually using a custom type of calculation does unfortunately not work.
I have also attached a log of the discover process (with all sensitive information removed) to this post.