T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2881.1 | The last 5% is always the hardest 8( | MOLAR::ROBERTS | Keith Roberts - DECmcc Toolkit Team | Thu Apr 30 1992 09:25 | 15 |
| RE: .0
> Using a global wildcard in an alarm, how do you tell what the entity which
> failed the poll in the exception handler is? In the example below I show the
> 8 parameters being passed and type the file name given. I can't tell what node
> is DOWN!!!
Sorry about that Brad .. guess this little detail got left out of the
phase-0 document .. 8)
The Entity information has been omitted! I'll enter a QAR on Alarms
QAR # 2848
/keith
|
2881.2 | waiting for fix :-) | ICS::WOODCOCK | | Thu Apr 30 1992 10:10 | 30 |
| > Sorry about that Brad .. guess this little detail got left out of the
> phase-0 document .. 8)
> The Entity information has been omitted! I'll enter a QAR on Alarms
> QAR # 2848
Hi keith,
Ouch, that hurt. Thanks for the QAR. As an aside though I've been using the
global wildcard for at least a week now. It has been working *outstanding*.
I used to have 60 rules (one for each router) and the scheduling of the
polling seemed to cause occasional problems (read: internal error with decnet
phase_iv am exceptions). This appears to have been greatly reduced.
I have now changed the entire map structure to accommadate these rules. I've
got one rule for every lower level domain polling all node4 entities. I have
taken out any duplicate entities within the lower structure. Before, if a
router within a domain had a connection to another domain then both routers
were placed in both domains. In each domain the 'second' router has been
removed and a simple text reference has been added.
I now have twelve rules polling all routers and even the load hosts (but you
gotta fix the above prob for it to work completely). In any event, the batch
job restarts each night. Polling new routers becomes a simple IMPM add of the
router to the domain. Woooooeeeeee, alarm change mngmt at its best. **NONE**
a much needed, much much appreciated feature,
brad...
|
2881.3 | We're happy .. if you're happy 8) | MOLAR::ROBERTS | Keith Roberts - DECmcc Toolkit Team | Thu Apr 30 1992 12:33 | 12 |
| Brad .. I'm glad you find Alarm Global Wildcards to be so useful.
It was a last minute decision to squeeze the functionality into v1.2,
but from what you have indicated .. it was the 'right thing to do'.
As you have already noticed, the Global Wildcards are dynamic, in that
Alarms senses changes to the domain; polling new entities as they are
added. This increases the communication with the Domain FM .. but the
alternative would be to disable & enable a rule whenever you modified
the domain membership .. yuck ..
/keith
|
2881.4 | good stuff, even if it's late | ICS::WOODCOCK | | Thu Apr 30 1992 13:26 | 13 |
| Keith,
> As you have already noticed, the Global Wildcards are dynamic, in that
> Alarms senses changes to the domain; polling new entities as they are
> added. This increases the communication with the Domain FM .. but the
> alternative would be to disable & enable a rule whenever you modified
> the domain membership .. yuck ..
I actually hadn't noticed that it was dynamic. I figured it wasn't going to
pick it up until the batch job recycled at midnight.
most impressive,
brad...
|
2881.5 | fixed | CTHQ3::WOODCOCK | | Mon Jul 20 1992 16:22 | 4 |
| As a follow up the SSB kit now gives the NODE under the MANAGED OBJECT field.
thanks,
brad...
|
2881.6 | just a little bit more info... maybe? | CX3PT3::SHOTO::W_MCGAW | | Fri Sep 18 1992 16:10 | 13 |
| Hi,
I don't mean to sound unappreciative... but I have a customer who
thinks we need to go one step better and provide the NAME of the node
instead of the address in the MANAGED OBJECT field. He has operators
that get notified by the wildcard alarm rule and DECnet addresses are
meaning less to them. Is there any chance that the synonym name could
be included as well as the address?
Any other suggestions would would be welcome.
Thanks'
Walt
|
2881.7 | SYNONYM instead of ADDRESS is a MUST | CUJO::HILL | Dan Hill-Net.Mgt.-Customer Resident | Sun Sep 20 1992 00:08 | 11 |
| My customer paid for a custom tool to be written, layered on top of
RBMS, to be able to accomplish just what you want. Until DECmcc ELM_AM
is able to accomplish the same thing, my customer will keep this custom
tool around. Not good.
This is a MUCH NEEDED and CUSTOMER-REQUIRED capability. Expect to have
more customers ask for, and even demand, this.
You guys would be my heroes if you did it.
-Dan
|