[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [hobbit] Nesting rules in hobbit-alerts.cfg
- To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
- Subject: Re: [hobbit] Nesting rules in hobbit-alerts.cfg
- From: "Patrick Nixon" <pnixon (at) gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:41:23 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Md9ifftBba4whDCUbI2wFWH57eIlURkkUCCh9+/lKyM=; b=Dw+voFZv2U4+0KKKhdMzrx83M66OMBsDXuR0PTZS40H/CUobICtrp0seyaYBOZKj6mDUPw/CDie+9qbWIJacIJ9yCLJl0lxvTxvItwo4f8vtE2qTh2i0WFft83iZPV97UHondkbFbJSKGskruPWHkdDLWM+YJAyiRQr8bfGHmeI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=mEoTDN6r6Vtq4IXwUYnRpZ7YO1JUfaX/hlO+8nQrJuGxqg0K4ACrOysyEWLPvoPcsNy2a2rSgOHrv9R68Pm2jJ8KKEU1o8P1RxteV/ENmmlVJP9JIaD0rqSUECdjfvuV9np1rQE+Va5nWYGFNAFU2+2qupvBBXFYhb44zU4OIiY=
- References: <29f517690803171026x7dda9de6k919c2e18a695fc79 (at) mail.gmail.com>
Did you look into maybe making a host group out of them?
I forget the hobbit term for them of course, but I know you can do
groups, which is a regex or simple declaration.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gary Baluha <gumby3203 (at) gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to nest rules in hobbit-alerts.cfg? For example, can I do
> something like this (indenting provided for readability):
>
> PAGE=hostPageA NOTICE RECOVERED
> HOST=hostA,hostB,hostC
> MAIL pager (at) somewhere.com
> HOST=%(hostD[0-9])
> MAIL email (at) somewhere.com
>
> Our alerting rules are starting to get kind of complex, and nesting alert
> rules as above would make things easier. I know I could do something like:
>
> PAGE=hostPageA NOTICE RECOVERED
> MAIL pager (at) somewhere.com HOST=hostA,hostB,hostC
> MAIL email (at) somewhere.com HOST=%(hostD[0-9])
>
> But some of the HOST= lists are very long (i.e. wrap across multiple lines),
> so the above 2nd example would look a lot uglier than it does in this post
> (which was simplified for readability). If nesting rules won't work, I
> wonder how much effort would be involved in adding this feature.
>