Re: [hobbit] grouping methods

["Josh Luthman" <josh (at) imaginenetworksllc.com>]

I would rather sever my you-know-what then have to go through all of that =)

That is a LOT of work to do.  I'll put up with the annoying
multi-message nights instead of doing that!

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Hubbard, Greg L <greg.hubbard (at) eds.com> wrote:
> I have used this method with great success, but it is a pain in the
> you-know-what to maintain.  It would be nice if this "router" tagging
> could be made recursive so you only have to specify one upstream host
> for each host, assuming that the upstream host is also in Hobbit.  As it
> is today you have to specify the full path to each "leaf" and this can
> get long.
>
> GLH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:rsmrcina (at) wi.rr.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:18 PM
> To: hobbit (at) hswn.dk
> Subject: Re: [hobbit] grouping methods
>
> If this is a situation of routed networks, Hobbit can know about that
> with directives in the bb-hosts file.  If it knows a host behind a
> router is down, it will only notify for the router, not the hosts behind
> the router.
>
> Linder, Doug (SABIC Innovative Plastics, consultant) wrote:
>> Sloan [mailto:joe (at) tmsusa.com] wrote:
>>
>>> We've not had a bb server go down in all the years we've been using
>>> it, but sometimes wan connectivity goes away due to circumstances
>>> beyond our control
>>
>> This is by far the biggest annoyance we have with all system
>> monitoring
>> - when networks go down.  It's a problem with every monitoring tool
>> there is and I can't think of any way to solve it: the monitoring
>> system has no way of knowing whether a system is down because it
>> crashed or if it's down because the network went down.  All it knows
>> is that it can't talk to the system anymore and something is wrong, so
>
>> it generates an alert.  When a whole network goes down, it can become
>> hundreds of simultaneous alerts.  And that's annoying enough when it's
>
>> just email alerts.  When you use Hobbit to generate cases in your
>> trouble ticket system, that can be hundreds of new, useless cases to
> manually close.
>>
>> We don't want to raise the amount of time a system has to be down
>> before Hobbit generates an alert, because we want to know as soon as
> possible.
>> But if we keep that number too low, then when the network has a brief
>> hiccup, we get hundreds of redundant cases.  This is especially a
>> problem with overseas networks on the WAN.
>>
>> I think the only possible solution would be for Hobbit to have some
>> kind of flood-detection routine built in, where it could tell how
>> rapidly it was sending alerts about connection problems for machines
>> all on the same network, and was smart enough to think "Whoa, I'm
>> about to send 100 connection alarms about systems on the same
>> network.... Instead of sending 100 of them, maybe I'll just send ONE
>> alert saying "You got a big problem here."
>>
>> Doug Linder
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to
>> hobbit-unsubscribe (at) hswn.dk
>>
>>
>
> --
> Rich Smrcina
> VM Assist, Inc.
> Phone: 414-491-6001
> Ans Service:  360-715-2467
> rich.smrcina at vmassist.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina
>
> Catch the WAVV!  http://www.wavv.org
> WAVV 2009 - Orlando, FL - May 15-19, 2009
>
> To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to
> hobbit-unsubscribe (at) hswn.dk
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the hobbit list, send an e-mail to
> hobbit-unsubscribe (at) hswn.dk
>
>
>



-- 
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer