topic Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working in Getting Data In

serverclass.conf blacklist not working

banderson7 — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:35:54 GMT

I'm transitioning my hosts from one set of indexers in Seattle to another set in Atlanta, in between, a heavy forwarder. I created a new forwarder app to install on the hosts, and created a serverclass to assign it. The app was installed on the host, but the old app wasn't removed. Below is my config:

[global]
restartSplunkd=true     
stateOnClient = enabled 

[serverClass:UF_config]
filterType = blacklist
blacklist.0 = swfctxfrm05
whitelist.0 = *
[serverClass:UF_config:app:UFconfig]

[serverClass:test_ctx]
filtertype = whitelist
whitelist.0 = swfctxfrm05
[serverClass:test_ctx:app:NewUFConfig]
[serverClass:test_ctx:app:10_inputs_windows_citrix]
[serverClass:test_ctx:app:Splunk_TA_Windows_4.8]

I thought the changing of filtertype from whitelist to blacklist would mean that I'd be able to add a host in the blacklist section before the whitelist section, which would then remove the UF_Config app from swfctxfrm05. swfctxfrm05 received the NewUFConfig app, but the UF_Config app is still there as well. Could someone help w/ this?

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

lycollicott — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:08:14 GMT

When you pull this serverclass up in the gui and click preview is swfctxfrm05 checked or unchecked?

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

banderson7 — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:11:48 GMT

The server is shown in that serverclass in the UI, yeah. It's also shown in the old serverclass as well.

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

cramasta — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:21:39 GMT

Try it like this. White list everything for the class name, then in the app class definition use the blacklist.

[serverClass:UF_config]
filterType = whitelist
whitelist.0 = *

[serverClass:UF_config:app:UFconfig]
filterType=blacklist
blacklist.0 = swfctxfrm05

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

banderson7 — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:36:02 GMT

That's interesting. Once I made that change and reloaded the deploy server, the apps listed are 10_inputs_windows_citrix
NewUFConfig
Splunk_TA_Windows_4.8
Splunk_TA_windows_4.8
Not sure why that last one is listed twice. Anyways, it still shows as being in the UF_config serverclass. And the data isn't getting to the new indexers. Is there any place I can check to see if the data is making it to the heavy forwarder?

Thanks for the help, btw.

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

cramasta — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 08:36:05 GMT

Ok that sounds promising that now you have the correct apps on swfctxfrm05 (besides the one listed twice. is it possible that Splunk_TA_windows_4.8 was manually created on that host?)

First thing I would check is the splunkd.log file on swfctxfrm05 to see if it is making connections to the heavy forwarder.

You should see events like this in the splunkd.log on swfctxfrm05 , where the IP is the heavy forwarder.
TcpOutputProc - Connected to idx=10.10.10.10:9997

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

cramasta — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:03:59 GMT

Also just want to make note that I dont use the Forwarder Management UI for maintaining any of my serverclass.conf settings. I find it easier to work directly in the conf file. While Im confident in the setting I am giving you, I cant say for sure that the Forwarder Management UI will like them.

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

cramasta — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:10:16 GMT

You can read more about what I am talking about here under Limitations

http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/6.3.2/Updating/Forwardermanagementoverview
And also some good info here
http://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/6.3.2/Updating/Forwardermanagementcompatibility

Re: serverclass.conf blacklist not working

banderson7 — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:59:25 GMT

I don't have local or rdp access to the host in question, but I could check the _internal log via splunk. After doing so, I see that it's connecting to the heavy forwarder, so apparently I messed up my props.conf stanza for forwarding the traffic to the new indexers.
I think this particular problem is solved. Thank you very much for your time and attention 🙂