| Title: | DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT. |
| Notice: | Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187 |
| Moderator: | TAEC::BEROUD |
| Created: | Mon Aug 21 1989 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 6497 |
| Total number of notes: | 27359 |
When examining the notification application's display I have noticed
that there is often more than one 'clear' alarm being generated for
a rule that has fired.
eg.
rule A fires with a severity of critical.
rule A fires with a severity of critical.
rule A fires with a severity of clear.
rule A fires with a severity of clear.
Is there a one-to-one mapping between the number of alarms generated
and the number of clears generated?
- Mike
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3113.1 | info on rule clear | TOOK::CALLANDER | MCC = My Constant Companion | Mon Jun 08 1992 16:45 | 32 |
no there isn't a 1 to 1 correlation in the sence that you have
described. There should be 1 clear for each "time" that a rule
transitions from a "fired" state to a "cleared" state. In this
description each "time" does not imply a single rule fired event
but it as many as there are evaluations of the rule during the
time the entity is in the error state.
This is how it should be working. Please note though that this is
shown for a single entity, if you have a wildcard you will see
differing results because the rules will fire/clear based on
each entity in the domain but will all be reported against the same
rule.
jill
+--entity in error state--+
| |
---------------+ +--------------
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
eval eval eval eval eval eval eval
NA NA FIRED FIRED FIRED CLEAR NA
NA = no action
FIRED = rule fires with specified severity
CLEAR = rule returns a clear event
| |||||
| 3113.2 | SUBWAY::REILLY | Mike Reilly - New York Bank District | Tue Jun 09 1992 14:16 | 34 | |
Hi Jill,
There may be a small bug somewhere in the clear alarm code as I
often get two clears for the same alarm. Here is a log of this occuring:
Alarm: minor SNMP madr01-s0 Rule wan_cisco_ping_failure has fired 1992-06-
09-12:34:41.653 Domain JPM_DEV:.domain.cisco_wan [1,4]
Info1: Rule fired: SNMP JPM_DEV:.ip.madr01-s0 ipReachability = down 1992
-06-09-12:34:36.708
Info2: (SNMP * ipReachability <> Up, at every=00:02)
Text: WAN Cisco failed ping test
Alarm: clear SNMP madr01-s0 Rule wan_cisco_ping_failure has fired 1992-06-
09-12:34:54.817 Domain JPM_DEV:.domain.cisco_wan [1,5]
Info1: Rule cleared: SNMP JPM_DEV:.ip.madr01-s0 ipReachability = up 1992
-06-09-12:34:51.040
Info2: (SNMP * ipReachability <> Up, at every=00:02)
Text: WAN Cisco failed ping test
Alarm: clear SNMP madr01-s0 Rule wan_cisco_ping_failure has fired 1992-06-
09-12:35:02.860 Domain JPM_DEV:.domain.cisco_wan [1,6]
Info1: Rule cleared: SNMP JPM_DEV:.ip.madr01-s0 ipReachability = up 1992
-06-09-12:35:01.720
Info2: (SNMP * ipReachability <> Up, at every=00:02)
Text: WAN Cisco failed ping test
I only see this with the SNMP ipReachability alarms, but then again
this is the rule that fires most often around here.
Thanks Jill for all you responses to my other notes over the last
two weeks.
_ Mike
| |||||