6:27 a.m.
Thx Gary,
Comments in-line,
Hi Lucas
The context is around the topic of HWKALERTS-49 - being able to replicate the
RTGov 'situation' functionality using alerts. I think the main part missing
at the moment is being able to associate the Alert with the business
transaction information that caused it.
I believe there are two scenarios that may occur, where business transaction
data may result in an Alert:
(1) metrics derived from the business transaction data are applied to the
alert engine resulting in an alert - the persisted Alert will need to
contain some link back to the business transaction. Metrics has their 'tag'
name/value pair, which I believe could be used to store this info when the
metric is created - so just need a way to carry that over into the alert.
(2) other 'events' - so for example, if we identify some situation of
interest (a service failure), we create an object representing that
situation and send it to the alerts engine - again the originating business
transaction id would need to be carried across via the intermediate 'service
failure' object.
Is it possible this could be handled by the work you are doing on HALERT-57?
In HWKALERTS-57 we are improving the Action model to pass the Alert that was linked and
also the Alert should have information about the definition who triggered it.
So, having an action, you will have the alert and the definition data.
If the business transaction info is "mapped" into the definition, the action
will have it.
These requeriments were addressed by plugins but as we are still working on it, we can
join other requeriments in the same context to improve it.
How do you plan to map the BTM info into the definition ? using Tags ?
That can help me to add/modify some aspect of the present work.
Thanks,
Lucas
Regards
Gary
----- Original Message -----
> Perhaps a rename to "Label" can be valid.
>
> Gary, is there some place where I can find more details about the context ?
>
> (Just to understand the whole scenario and see if what can be
> needed/interesting).
>
> Thanks,
> Lucas
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:43:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I don't mind if we adopt Tag as being name/value pair - but then we
> > should
> > use the same approach in Alerts. I actually need the Alert to have
> > ability
> > to record name/value pairs so this would suit my need, but they would
> > then
> > they would need to change their current Tag to be something else,
> > possibly
> > Label?
> >
> > Regards
> > Gary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > Not using the same terminology as "industry standards" is a
problem,
> > > not
> > > using the same terminology within Hawkular small world is another...
> > > Can we solve both ?
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > >
> > > On 06/24/2015 12:25 PM, Michael Burman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree with changing the terms. Many of metrics competing
> > > > products
> > > > (such as InfluxDB / OpenTSDB) use the same terminology, so it is
> > > > easier
> > > > for customers to understand the differences and similarities between
> > > > products. Using different terminology was one of the difficulties in
> > > > RHQ
> > > > (like noted in the F2F meeting) and I don't think we should
repeat
> > > > the
> > > > same mistake.
> > > >
> > > > - Micke
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown(a)redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > > > <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 11:45:56 AM
> > > > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] Tag concept in metrics and alerts
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Both metrics and alerts use the term 'tag' - however metrics
use a
> > > > name/value pair for a tag, and alerts uses it as a label. Wondering
> > > > whether we need consistency?
> > > >
> > > > When I hear the term tag, I usually envisage a label - e.g. as in
> > > > git.
> > > > So
> > > > wondering whether it would be clearer for metrics to rename tags to
> > > > properties?
> > > >
> > > > Possibly metrics needs the concept of a tag/label as well?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Gary
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev