NORMAL Status and %Recurrences%

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:32 am

Hi Thomas

thomasschmeidl wrote:Hi Juergen,

changed a bit. Initial Value is 0 now - can't remember why I suggested 1 before

See what I've added above - I have remembered

thomasschmeidl wrote:
But you can think about setting BAD when you have more than 4 Recurrences with (%Reply% > 200) and (%Reply% < 1000).
[x] Use "Warning" status if: (%Reply% > 200) and (%Reply% < 1000) and (%NormalStatusRecurrencies% >= 2) and (%WarningStatusRecurrencies% < 2)
IMHO this will not work unless the test timeout is uncoupled from the "bad"-threshold ("bad" threshold must be 200, test timeout must be 1000 or more - see my posts above).

Yes, it will not work exactly, because BAD is not counted as a warning. Therefore it will take more recurrencies until the status will change to bad finally. That will lead to some discussions or a post in the BUG Forum.

thomasschmeidl wrote:PS: We are closed to the thread with the highest number of posts

That's bad news - why is a "simple" feature like having more statuses so complicated

Are there other tools, that have such feature where we can cheat ?

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:36 am

KS-Soft wrote:1) If HostMonitor would not reset %NormalStatusRecurrencies% on other status changes (e.g. Normal -> Bad), this will lead to problems in some cases

Can you give an example please.

KS-Soft wrote:2) If HostMonitor will reset this variable on any status change, "(%Reply% > 200) and (%Reply% < 1000) and (%NormalStatusRecurrencies% >= 2) " will not work well

I agree, it will not work well.

KS-Soft wrote:Anybody else needs such complicated behavior?
Probably we should release HostMonitor as it is?

Are there more users out there who have played with the new status feature ?
Please let us know what you think.

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:27 pm

>>If HostMonitor would not reset %NormalStatusRecurrencies% on other >>status changes (e.g. Normal -> Bad), this will lead to problems in some >>cases
>Can you give an example please

If you will need to use Normal status for passed probes instead of failed probes (as it suppose to be), then it will not work properly.

Regards
Alex

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:29 pm

Version 6.51c available at www.ks-soft.net/download/hm651c.zip
You may use 2 new variables: %FailureIteration% (analogue of suggested SSSBR) and %CurrentStatusIteration% (resets on any status changes, e.g. Normal -> Ok)

Regards
Alex

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:25 am

Hi Alex:
Some problems when I follow the description here
http://www.ks-soft.net/hostmon.eng/news.htm
1. When I use the expression you stated

(‘%SuggestedSimpleStatus%’==’DOWN’) and (%SuggestedRecurrences%<4)

using copy and paste I get an error message when applying the new test. Seems that the quotation is the problem. Using " it works. Just change that in the docu please.

2. I created an SNMP load test using what you described

Code: Select all

enable “Treat Warning status as Bad” option 
enable “Use Warning" status” option and provide ('%SuggestedSimpleStatus%'=='DOWN') and (%SuggestedRecurrences%<4) expression 
enable “Use Normal status” option and use expression like ('%SuggestedSimpleStatus%'=='DOWN') and (('%Status%'=='Ok') or ('%LastStatus%'=='Ok'))

That does the following (other than described)

E.g. you may configure HostMonitor to use Normal status for 1st and 2nd failed probes, use Warning status for 3rd and 4th failed probes and set Bad status starting from 5th failed check

OK - Normal - Normal - Warning - Warning - Warning - Bad
Please change that in the docu too

3. Same test as 2.
- Let the test go to Bad for >= 2 times
- Change Somethimg in the test and Apply
- Agree to "Reset recurrences and check status now"
Result is:
Warning - Warning - Warning - Bad (Normal is missing)

That is logical behaviour, because Status and LastStatus is not OK.
On the other hand when I agree to resetting recurrencies I would expect the same behaviour as starting from scratch. That's not an error but a bit strange. ??!

All test done with 6.51c. I'll try to test the new 6.51c features today.

thomasschmeidl · Post by **thomasschmeidl** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:36 am

Hi Alex

Version 6.51c available at www.ks-soft.net/download/hm651c.zip
You may use 2 new variables: %FailureIteration% (analogue of suggested SSSBR) and %CurrentStatusIteration% (resets on any status changes, e.g. Normal -> Ok)

Thanks a lot.

I tested the %FailureIteration%-Variable in easy-to-understand expressions like

[x] use Warning Status if (%FailureIteration% >= 5) and (%FailureIteration% <=8)
[x] use NormalStatus if (%FailureIteration% >= 1) and (%FailureIteration% <=4)

it behaves as expected - great.

Cheers

Thomas

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:44 am

Hi Alex,

great improvement

Many thanks to you

I played with the %FailureIteration%.
Now we are free to decide how many "Normal" and "Warning" we will have before "Bad". It's working fine.

Even more complex is no problem.

Code: Select all

CPU test with 75 %
enable “Treat Warning status as Bad” option 
enable “Use Warning" status” option and provide ("%SuggestedSimpleStatus%"=="DOWN") and (%FailureIteration% < 10)
enable “Use Normal status” option and use expression like ("%SuggestedSimpleStatus%"=="DOWN") and (((%FailureIteration% < 5) and ("%Reply%" <= "90 %")) or ((%FailureIteration% <= 2) and ("%Reply%" > "90 %")))

- Set "Normal" for 1st to 4th Bad recurrence
- Set "Warning" from 5th to 9th Bad recurrence
- Set "Bad" from 10th Bad recurrence
- If CPU is > 90 % then set Warning starting with 3rd recurrence

Only thing to discuss:
- When you have test in Status Bad
- Change the test and Apply
- Agree to "Reset recurrences and check status now"

Then %FailureIteration% is not reset
Maybe it's desired behaviour ?

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:00 am

Hi Alex,

I've question about

KS-Soft wrote:...%CurrentStatusIteration% (resets on any status changes, e.g. Normal -> Ok)

I created CPU test 10 %
[ ] use Warning Status if
[x] use NormalStatus if ("%Reply%" > "10 %") and (%CurrentStatusIteration% <= 2)

The expression is not currently finished, because the first > 10 % goes to Bad, but that's not essential for my question.
If I create more than 10 % CPU load the following happens:

Bad - Normal - Normal - Normal - Normal - Normal ...

Maybe I haven't got the point. I expected:
Bad - Normal - Normal - Bad - Bad ...
because of %CurrentStatusIteration% should be > 2 after 3rd Normal status ?
Where is my missunderstanding ?

Many thanks for your help

Best regards

Juergen

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:10 pm

using copy and paste I get an error message when applying the new test. Seems that the quotation is the problem. Using " it works. Just change that in the docu please

MS Word "loves" to replace characters.. Ok, fixed

3. Same test as 2.
- Let the test go to Bad for >= 2 times
- Change Somethimg in the test and Apply
- Agree to "Reset recurrences and check status now"
Result is:
Warning - Warning - Warning - Bad (Normal is missing)
That is logical behaviour, because Status and LastStatus is not OK.
On the other hand when I agree to resetting recurrencies I would expect the same behaviour as starting from scratch. That's not an error but a bit strange. ??!

I don't see how it can be changed

Only thing to discuss:
- When you have test in Status Bad
- Change the test and Apply
- Agree to "Reset recurrences and check status now"
Then %FailureIteration% is not reset
Maybe it's desired behaviour ?

Probably FailureIteration and CurrentStatusIteration should be set to 0 as well

Regards
Alex

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:55 am

Hi Alex,

did you see that question ?

JuergenF wrote:Hi Alex,

I've question about

KS-Soft wrote:...%CurrentStatusIteration% (resets on any status changes, e.g. Normal -> Ok)
I created CPU test 10 %
[ ] use Warning Status if
[x] use NormalStatus if ("%Reply%" > "10 %") and (%CurrentStatusIteration% <= 2)

The expression is not currently finished, because the first > 10 % goes to Bad, but that's not essential for my question.
If I create more than 10 % CPU load the following happens:

Bad - Normal - Normal - Normal - Normal - Normal ...

Maybe I haven't got the point. I expected:
Bad - Normal - Normal - Bad - Bad ...
because of %CurrentStatusIteration% should be > 2 after 3rd Normal status ?
Where is my missunderstanding ?

Many thanks for your help

Best regards

Juergen

Many thanks for your help

Juergen

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:25 pm

x] use NormalStatus if ("%Reply%" > "10 %") and (%CurrentStatusIteration% <= 2)
because of %CurrentStatusIteration% should be > 2 after 3rd Normal status ? Where is my missunderstanding ?

Lets see. Normal -> Normal -> Normal - %CurrentStatusIteration% goes to 3, HM sets Bad status and resets %CurrentStatusIteration% to 1.
So expression is True again and HM sets Normal status.
You should expect the following statuses Normal -> Normal -> Normal -> Bad -> Normal -> Normal ...
Plus there is small mistake in the code. Fixed. Update available at www.ks-soft.net/download/hm651d.zip

Probably FailureIteration and CurrentStatusIteration should be set to 0 as well

Done. The same update

Regards
Alex

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 3:26 am

KS-Soft wrote:Lets see. Normal -> Normal -> Normal - %CurrentStatusIteration% goes to 3, HM sets Bad status and resets %CurrentStatusIteration% to 1.
So expression is True again and HM sets Normal status.
You should expect the following statuses Normal -> Normal -> Normal -> Bad -> Normal -> Normal ...
Plus there is small mistake in the code. Fixed. Update available at www.ks-soft.net/download/hm651d.zip

Hi Alex,

works fine now

Many thanks and best regards

Juergen

PS:

KS-Soft wrote:
Probably FailureIteration and CurrentStatusIteration should be set to 0 as well
Done. The same update

See here please http://www.ks-soft.net/cgi-bin/phpBB/vi ... php?t=3623

JuergenF · Post by **JuergenF** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 4:44 am

thomasschmeidl wrote:@Alex,

I see, my 1st post was not expressed clearly (I am sorry, but I am not a native speaker).
That's why I described it again in words:

You have a "warning" threshold in case of slow replies (>200) and a "bad" threshold in case of very slow/no replies (>1000). And you consider the first two irregular (=warning or bad) replies as "normal"
IMHO this is not a very strange setting.

@Thomas:
In this thread there are so many thing up to now. I opened a new one for this specific issue. Please follow up here
http://www.ks-soft.net/cgi-bin/phpBB/vi ... 5550#15550