Can't argue with that...
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
(sent via BlackBerry)
----- Original Message -----
From: salive-owner
Sent: 05/12/2005 20:52
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [SA-list] Feature Request 3 - additional status type
Let me think about it :-)
What's sure is that this will NOT be in the next release as
the features set for that one is fixed. Maybe in the next
one.
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [SA-list] Feature Request 3 - additional status type
Couldn't have put it better myself,
Tom!
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS
- European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881
518854
(sent via BlackBerry)
----- Original Message -----
From:
salive-owner
Sent: 05/12/2005 20:01
To:
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [SA-list] Feature
Request 3 - additional status type
I had asked for this feature also. below is the
original request:
====================================
Request:
A new status for checks:
DISABLED.
Here is what I am thinking: DISABLED acts like
MAINTENANCE in that checks are skipped each cycle.
BUT - DISABLED checks are also skipped (not
processed) by all the output processes (web pages, interchange files,
etc.). Basically you can't see them anywhere except in the
GUI.
Let me explain my reasoning for this request with an
example:
I have 4 fax servers in production (1,2,3,4). I have
several checks for each that I have created. If one unit
fails, I bring in a spare - it becomes unit 5 and I create checks for that
unit in SA and unit 1 now becomes my spare offline unit (after it is
fixed).
Rather than put all the old Unit 1 checks on MAINTENANCE
and see them appear all the time - I want to hide
them.
I have 4 units in production (2,3,4,5) and SA checks them
and everything is fine. I want SA to completely ignore checks for
unit 1.
I don't want to delete them from SA because I may want to
bring unit 1 back on-line and I hate recreating all the
checks.
The way SA currently works - I see a whole group
of checks in "MAINTENANCE" for unit 1 - and it looks like I am dealing with
ongoing operational issues. The actual fact is that all production systems
are fine and there are no ongoing issues. The DISABLED checks for
unit 1 can be quickly turned back on when I roll-out the unit again - but they
disappear until then.
Think: Executives walk by and see all a completely "green"
status board instead of one with lots of un-necessary
yellow.
Does that make sense?
=======================================================
-tom
v
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 11:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] Feature Request 3 - additional status type
No, not the GUI - I'm assuming dormant entries *would* still appear in the GUI - I don't know about anyone else, but we only use this for management of the app.
It's the HTML output and status alerts where I want to exclude them. I guess for *maximum* flexibility you could *potentially* have it in HTML reports, so that it would be included or not depending on the SAIF selection (just as we can currently display all checks, or only active ones, or only maintenance, depending on the specific need of the report). But for my own purposes I don't even need that.
Does that make sense?
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
| "Dirk Bulinckx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/2005 16:01
|
|
When you say "any reports or output", are you then refering to the HTML based output or also to the "normal" GUI/interface?
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 4:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [SA-list] Feature Request 3 - additional status type
Because I *do* want the existing maintenance status to show up on reports and screens. "Maintenance" to me means "Don't forget about this box - it's a valid thing to check, but we've temporarily turned off the alerts because we're doing things". What I describe below as "long term maintenance" ("Dormant" might be a better word) means "This box is going to be out of action for weeks if not months, and I don't want it clogging up my screens and status alerts, but at some point in the future it will be reinstated so I don't want to completely delete it".
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
| "Dirk Bulinckx"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/12/2005 14:38
|
|
And why have a new status type for it?
Dirk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 2:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [SA-list] Feature Request 3 - additional status type
To conclude my hat-trick of feature requests: a repeat of one that (I think) someone else asked for a little while ago, but I'm not sure what the outcome was. There are times when I'd like to put a check into what I might call "long term" maintenance - I don't want to delete it completely because often they take ages to tweak correctly, but I don't want it showing up on any reports or outputs. What would be the chance of getting an extra status type added?
Many thanks,
Ian
_________________________________
Ian K Gray
OEL IS - European Infrastructure Support
Tel: +44 1236 502661
Mob: +44 7881 518854
