Use monit validate to get live data#19759
Merged
StormLiangMS merged 2 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom Jul 25, 2025
Merged
Conversation
'monit status' fetches a stale 60 secs old data, this is not ideal. We should use the live data , 'monit validate' provides the live data
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Contributor
Author
|
@StormLiangMS @lipxu Kindly review and merge. |
lipxu
reviewed
Jul 24, 2025
tests/common/plugins/memory_utilization/memory_utilization_dependence.json
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
lipxu
approved these changes
Jul 24, 2025
Contributor
Author
|
@StormLiangMS can you please review this. |
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 28, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202505: #19853 |
11 tasks
11 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
mssonicbld
added
Included in 202505 branch
and removed
Created PR to 202505 branch
labels
nissampa
pushed a commit
to nissampa/sonic-mgmt_dpu_test
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
ashutosh-agrawal
pushed a commit
to ashutosh-agrawal/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
vidyac86
pushed a commit
to vidyac86/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 23, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
opcoder0
pushed a commit
to opcoder0/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <110003254+opcoder0@users.noreply.github.com>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
AharonMalkin
pushed a commit
to AharonMalkin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <amalkin@nvidia.com>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
venu-nexthop
pushed a commit
to venu-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 13, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
ytzur1
pushed a commit
to ytzur1/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <ytzur@nvidia.com>
venu-nexthop
pushed a commit
to venu-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 27, 2026
What is the motivation for this PR? disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test. But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc. This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached. How did you do it? We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status" How did you verify/test it? verified by running the test
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Summary:
'monit status' provides a stale 60 secs old data, this is not ideal in certain scenarios.
We should use the live data , 'monit validate' provides the live data.
Fixes # (issue)
https://github.com/aristanetworks/sonic-qual.msft/issues/718
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
disk/test_disk_exhaustion.py creates a 1.7G file in the test and deletes it at the end of the test.
But "monit status" is configured to check only once every 60 secs in /etc/monit/monitrc.
This provides a stale data resulting in memory high threshold getting breached.
How did you do it?
We should use "monit validate" instead of "monit status"
How did you verify/test it?
verified by running the test
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation