[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: contignuous alert supression
From: |
Igor Grabin |
Subject: |
Re: contignuous alert supression |
Date: |
Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:11:35 +0200 |
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.
--
Igor "CacoDem0n" Grabin, http://violent.death.kiev.ua/