Alert dampening problem

Charles Crouch ccrouch at redhat.com
Wed Mar 28 18:42:50 UTC 2012


----- Original Message -----
> Jay,
> 
> Thanks, I think this explains the problem I was having, user error.
>  ;-)
> 
> I reread the dampening section and it all looks obvious now.  I tried
> this out and it does what I want when I set it properly.

Great. So what did you want, and what did you set it to?

Just interested, because as Jay mentioned we don't seem to support your original use case of "1 *every* 10 minutes"

> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > I tried creating an alert on a platform resource, the free memory
> > > metric, absolute threshold > 0, with a dampening of 1 every 10
> > > minutes (see attached images).  In the image you can see that it
> > > fired 3 times in 3 minutes (collection interval of 1 minute).
> > >  This is similar to the situation I have with a different
> > > resource and metric.
> > 
> > Unfortunately the images didn't come through for me, but you may be
> > seeing the expected behavior.   It's not actually "1 *every* 10
> > minutes", it's "once every X=1 times the condition set is true
> > within a time period of Y=10 minutes".
> > 
> > That means you get an alert if the condition set matches 1 time
> > within a 10 minute period.  If you report every minute you  get a
> > chance of up to 10 evaluations.  So X can validly be set in a
> > range of [1..10].  Since you set X=1, only 1 evaluation has to
> > match before you get an alert. So, you get 10 alerts.   If you
> > want to ensure that you only get 1 alert in 10 minutes then you'd
> > need to set X=10, and the condition set would have to match 10
> > times before an alert would be sent.  But this is equivalent to
> > the simpler "consecutive times" dampening.
> > 
> > At least this is how I understand it.  I could be wrong.
> > 
> > As far as I know there is no dampening mechanism for limiting the
> > number of alerts sent based solely on time.   We do have recovery
> > alert defs, which means you could fire an alert, then have that
> > alert def disabled until its recovery alert def fires.  But again,
> > I don't think there exists today a way for a recovery alert def to
> > fire based solely on the disabled-time of its to-be-recovered
> > alert def.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rhq-devel mailing list
> > rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
> 


More information about the rhq-devel mailing list