Some thoughts about alerts, acks and escalations

Hi Henrik,

for me it would be a "nice to have" feature.
What I would set on top of a wishlist would be a failover server solution, 
so that the guys who stare at the NK page 24x7 will have something to stare 
at when the hobbit server crashes ;-)
Nevertheless I want to say thank you for your great work!

Regards,
Stefan


>From: Henrik Stoerner <user-ce4a2c883f75@xymon.invalid>
>Reply-To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
>To: user-ae9b8668bcde@xymon.invalid
>Subject: [hobbit] Some thoughts about alerts, acks and escalations
>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:07 +0200
>
>I'm beginning to look at the issue of escalating alerts. And I've had
>an idea that I'd like to get some feedback on before I go ahead and
>implement it.
>
>Right now, Hobbit doesn't handle escalating an alert. When someone
>receives an alert message, they can ack it - when they do, all alerts
>stop and the item disappears from the "Critical systems" page 
(the NK
>page).
>
>BB has the concept of escalating an alert, meaning that some
>recipients of an alert will get the alert message even if the alert
>has been acknowledged.
>
>
>What I'd like to have is the BB system with a finer granularity. A
>recipient in the hobbit-alerts.cfg file has an associated 
"level",
>default is 1.
>
>I want our NOC guys who do nothing but stare at the NK page 24x7 to be
>able to acknowledge an alert - and that just gets it off their
>monitor, it doesn't stop alerts from going out. A "level 0"
>acknowledgment - this is just to log that a trouble ticket has been
>raised for the issue.
>
>A technician (who is a "level 1" recipient) can acknowledge 
the alert
>he receives - this will stop alert messages from going out to other
>"level 1" receipients, so all of the engineers can concentrate 
on
>doing what needs to be done.
>
>Alerts will still be sent to recipients who are "level 2" and 
above -
>these are the equivalent of the BB "escalation" alerts. They 
can ack
>the alert if they'd like to turn off more alert messages, of course.
>
>You can have even higher levels if you like, probably going up the
>hierarchy of managers. I don't think we'll using more than the 3
>levels I've described, but there is no reason to impose any limit.
>
>
>Does that sound like it would be useful?
>
>
>Regards,
>Henrik
>
>
>
>