[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] Weird Alerting behavior...bug or expected??
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] Weird Alerting behavior...bug or expected??
- From: Trent Melcher <trent.melcher (at) sitel.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:14:01 -0500
- References: <0DC212FE7F69B24F81D2C4F1E65FCC2302193B3F (at) svits11.main.ad.rit.edu>
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 09:18 -0400, Eric Meddaugh wrote:
>
>
>
>
> We have the following the the Alerts file:
>
>
>
> # on-call page
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_DAY=SCRIPT /home/hobbit/server/ext/qpage.pl
> tss_sys_oncall COLOR=red REPEAT=10 TIME=W:0800:1700 RECOVERED
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_OFF=SCRIPT /home/hobbit/server/ext/qpage.pl
> tss_sys_oncall COLOR=red REPEAT=20 TIME=W:1700:0800 RECOVERED
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_END=SCRIPT /home/hobbit/server/ext/qpage.pl
> tss_sys_oncall COLOR=red REPEAT=20 TIME=06:*:* RECOVERED
>
>
>
> $DUPING=%(mxgate)
>
>
>
> HOST=$DUPING SERVICE=conn
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_DAY
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_OFF
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_END
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We had a host (mxgate03) go down at 3:15am, it sent 1 initial page,
> but no follow ups. No repeats. Does Monday from 12am-8am fall in a
> “limbo” timeframe where the 2nd rule does not apply since it’s not a
> Weekday after 5pm, but before 8am??? The host was down for over 3
> hours without any follow up pages.
>
Since you received the initial page, either the rule was hit and it just
didnt process the REPEAT, or I suspect you have a rule above this one
that possibly process this alert prior to reaching this one which doesnt
have a repeat. If you have a test hobbit server you could change your
time on the server and run some test alerts to see which rule is getting
hit.
Trent
>
>
> Do I need a rule similar to:
>
>
>
> $TSSSYS_ONCALL_MON=SCRIPT /home/hobbit/server/ext/qpage.pl
> tss_sys_oncall COLOR=red REPEAT=10 TIME=1:0000:0800 RECOVERED
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The different rules are suppose to repeat 10 minute during business
> hours, and 20 minutes off-hours.
>
>
>
> Any ideas? Is this a bug or expected behavior?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> ---Eric
>
>