Added connections and memory monitoring

No idea what useful boundaries would look like so no boundaries yet.

[Felix Dahlke, 2013-10-01 14:05:33]

Since we report percentages for memory usage, I'd vote for having tresholds of
70%/90% or something. Can't really think of a good threshold for the connections
either.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
File modules/nagios/files/check_memory (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
modules/nagios/files/check_memory:6: if bytes >= 1024*1024:
Whitespace around *, as below?

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
modules/nagios/files/check_memory:7: return "%i MB" % (bytes / (1024 * 1024))
Would actually prefer to use MiB here and KiB below, that'd avoid ambiguity.

[Wladimir Palant, 2013-11-04 07:54:40]

I've addressed the comments with one exception - see below.

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
File modules/nagios/files/check_memory (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
modules/nagios/files/check_memory:7: return "%i MB" % (bytes / (1024 * 1024))
On 2013/10/01 14:05:33, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> Would actually prefer to use MiB here and KiB below, that'd avoid ambiguity.

I would have to look up MiB and KiB every time, nobody uses that. Memory is
always measured "real" megabytes, no issue here. Note that there is a real
ambiguity concerning disk space but I don't think anybody has an issue with
check_disk using MB.

[Felix Dahlke, 2013-11-20 16:00:50]

LGTM

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
File modules/nagios/files/check_memory (right):

http://codereview.adblockplus.org/11773028/diff/1/modules/nagios/files/check_...
modules/nagios/files/check_memory:7: return "%i MB" % (bytes / (1024 * 1024))
On 2013/11/04 07:54:41, Wladimir Palant wrote:
> On 2013/10/01 14:05:33, Felix H. Dahlke wrote:
> > Would actually prefer to use MiB here and KiB below, that'd avoid ambiguity.
> 
> I would have to look up MiB and KiB every time, nobody uses that. Memory is
> always measured "real" megabytes, no issue here. Note that there is a real
> ambiguity concerning disk space but I don't think anybody has an issue with
> check_disk using MB.

It's not true that nobody uses it, but it's quite true that not everybody uses
it. I guess you're right, for memory sizes people typically expect MiB when it
says MB.