[ZBX-10975] Expand JMX monitoring capabilities Created: 2016 Jul 07 Updated: 2017 May 30 Resolved: 2016 Jul 11 |
|
Status: | Closed |
Project: | ZABBIX BUGS AND ISSUES |
Component/s: | Java gateway (J) |
Affects Version/s: | 3.0.3 |
Fix Version/s: | None |
Type: | Problem report | Priority: | Major |
Reporter: | Thorsten Kunz | Assignee: | Unassigned |
Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 1 |
Labels: | javagateway, jmx | ||
Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
Original Estimate: | Not Specified |
Attachments: | ZBX-10975-dns_length.patch ZBX-10975-jmx_service.patch | ||||||||||||
Issue Links: |
|
Description |
The current Zabbix JMX out-of-the-box monitoring capabilities are somewhat limited. The two most significant limitations are a) you can only monitor standard JMX URLs The attached patch addresses both of these limitations. It is complete upgrade safe and backwards compatible so existing JMX monitoring won't be affected at all. It adds some functionality to the DNS field for a hosts JMX Agent configuration. Instead of a regular DNS hostname you can enter a regular JMX service URL with e.g. different transports like this: service:jmx:remote+http://wildfly1-2-vl:8330 I also added a second patch that increases the max DNS hostname field length from 64 to 255 characters to allow for more complex JMX service URLs like this: service:jmx:rmi://esb1-3-vl.dfwx:44448/jndi/rmi://esb1-3-vl.dfwx:1103/karaf-camel-call-handler-1 |
Comments |
Comment by Thorsten Kunz [ 2016 Jul 07 ] |
Patch to be able to monitor custom JMX "serivce:jmx:..." URLs |
Comment by Thorsten Kunz [ 2016 Jul 07 ] |
Patch to be able to add long custom JMX service URLs into the DNS field |
Comment by richlv [ 2016 Jul 07 ] |
the first part seems to be a duplicate of |
Comment by Thorsten Kunz [ 2016 Jul 07 ] |
Yes, might very well be the case just for the Zabbix 3.0-branch. We have been using a patched version of Zabbix for years now. I just ported the patch to 3.0. |
Comment by Aleksandrs Saveljevs [ 2016 Jul 11 ] |
The second part seems to be a duplicate of |
Comment by Aleksandrs Saveljevs [ 2016 Jul 11 ] |
Thanks for the patches! It would, however, be nice to continue discussions in the corresponding tickets. Closing this one as a duplicate. |