You still would have unexpected behaviour. I think in this case, it is preferred to have expected behaviour rather than doing bullshit magic and voodoo in the background.
Adam.
Sent from BlueMail
.. or instilling intelligence into the poller to run polls based on "top level" (least amount of parent devices in tree) ... which is not impossible but definitely fiddly :-)
On 20/05/2016 21:42, Adam Armstrong wrote:
This is fiddly due to the way our poller runs as separated processes. You'd not be able to reliably suppress alerts this way, without also delaying them by up to 5 minutes.
Adam.
Sent from BlueMail
On 20 May 2016, at 19:07, Spencer Ryan <sryan@arbor.net> wrote:For example we have a testlab that has no UPS/Generator power that we monitor about 200 devices, when the building loses power we get those 200 alarms about devices being offline, when in reality there is a single 6500 as the gateway, and if that switch is offline, i know the rest will be.I've asked about this before but how hard would it be for you guys to implement alert dependencies?The easiest way I can think of doing it would be to simply let us set a "parent" device for anything, and if that device is offline don't send any alerts for downstream devices.
We don't want to disable the offline alarms because we do want to know when individual devices drop out.
Thanks!
Arbor Networks+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium_______________________________________________ observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium
observium mailing list
observium@observium.org
http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium