On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Henrik Størner <henrik at hswn.dk> wrote:
Why can't you use the new "Critical Systems" view and assign different priorities to the systems ? E.g. your core network infrastructure is priority 1, critical servers priority 2, and the rest priority 3 (or lower).
We don't use NK at all so I will have to investigate it to see if it's useful to us. Grouping items regardless of how critical they are would still be incredibly useful for us to troubleshoot just about anything, even less critical stuff.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Francois Claire <fclaire at free.fr> wrote:
In the end having a monitoring system with such a constraint implies good IT work rules and the service benefits from that. We're monitoring a quite large network and guess what: our nongreen view is most of the time green ! :-) When it goes red the guys are reacting fast because they know it's serious.
This is how our network is run. It's a challenge to keep things green but they're supposed to. Windows hosts do always go red if someone's printer isn't mapped during remote desktop so in almost all cases we completely disable syslog monitoring in windows. The same holds true to other systems- if something is red a lot we must come up with a fix or change how we're monitoring things. The non-green page is used the most.
I'm still curious what those two code snippets are for? Again they were in bbdisplay/pagegen.c:
bb2page.subpages = NULL;
bb2page.groups = NULL;--Chris