[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: contignuous alert supression

From: Martin Pala
Subject: Re: contignuous alert supression
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:47:01 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 Debian/1.7.5-1

Igor Grabin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:05:50PM +0100, Martin Pala wrote:

Current monit behavior is sufficient, because Monit has both error and recovery alerts. This means that you should take the alert seriously - until you will receive 'recovery' alert, you can be sure that the service is broken.

okay, down to earth with current monit behaviour...
20 seconds timeout, around 8 monitored machines, around 20 alerts a day,
around 1 real alert in a couple of days.
add some human factor to it... It's simple to miss one alert from 21,
when I'm trying to look for real one.
I won't miss an alert when it's screaming out.

I see no problem in this sense with current monit behavior - it will send you alert and when you will not receive recovery alert in specific timeframe (which you know), the problem is persistent according to your rules.

see above. 20 false alerts - 40 void messages.

... then it could be better to eliminate false alerts, which makes 95% of your messages volume.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]