[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:	DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:	Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:	TAEC::BEROUD

Created:	Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6497
Total number of notes:	27359

2575.0. "All domains firing???" by ICS::WOODCOCK () Mon Mar 16 1992 19:43

Hi folks,

I've got a perplexing problem which has killed using MCC as a network
monitor. Any help is appreciated as we are in the middle of the Atlantic
without an engine (never mind a paddle :-) ).

regards,
brad...


Scenerio & history:

x1.2.15
vms 5.4-3
8810 w/384M

Domain structure has .BB at the top and 12 <site> domains directly below it.
The V1.1 stopped here except for domains as delni's. When we went to x1.2.15
we rebuilt the <site> domains. Within each site domain we included a cross
reference to the other <site> domains where a link occurred. These were put
in as STATIC (BTW, no error when one was put in as dynamic). This was done in
all the <site> domains. Also, direct circuit entities were placed in all the
domains as lines.

We next created and enabled a rule for each of the original 13 domains with
an expression of:

occurs(node4 * circuit syn-* circuit down circuit fault), in domain .<site>

An event was created within two of the site domains. ALL 12 domains highlight
a problem! When looking into each domain only the two domains with the 'real'
problem indicate a color change in the sub-level. CPU can consume 80% at
times.

I thought there might be a structure problem with the domains and the
understanding that the added domains were static and maybe MCC didn't
recognise this. So I then deleted ALL of these domains that I had added at
the second level which were also domains on the first <site> level. What was
left was the original structure plus a few extra STATIC domains which were
not of the original 13 <site> domains.

Fire alarm, same problem.
Exit MCC, enter MCC, fire alarm, same problem.
Exit MCC, FORCEX all MCC processes, restart alarms, enter mcc, fire alarm,
     same problem.

Could this be a problem with the wildcarding of the alarms or is there 
something left over from the domain structure punishing me???

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
2575.1	Can you explain the Rule you created (?)	NANOVX::ROBERTS	Keith Roberts - DECmcc Toolkit Team	`Tue Mar 17 1992 10:55`	14
	RE: .0 >> occurs(node4 * circuit syn-* circuit down circuit fault), in domain .<site> Did you actually put the 'in domain' qualifier inside the Rule expression? I don't believe this is supported by the Alarms package. I just tried this expression and it was accepted and enabled! create dom keith rule dom expr=(occurs(node4 * any event), in domain foo) Is this the type of expression you created? /keith
2575.2	here is exact syntax	ICS::WOODCOCK		`Tue Mar 17 1992 12:16`	32
	Hi Keith, Thanks for the quick reply. >> occurs(node4 * circuit syn-* circuit down circuit fault), in domain .<site> >> Did you actually put the 'in domain' qualifier inside the Rule expression? >> I don't believe this is supported by the Alarms package. No, I just put that domain info in the line above to indicate this rule was created for all 13 domains (bb and 12 <sites>). >> I just tried this expression and it was accepted and enabled! Yes, this worked fine for me also when testing a single domain. Hence we rebuilt thinking we were going to be ok. >> create dom keith rule dom expr=(occurs(node4 * any event), in domain foo) >> Is this the type of expression you created? No. The syntax was. create mcc 0 alarms rule ZKO_evl_down - expression=(occurs(node4 * circuit syn-* - circuit down circuit fault)), - category="event_rules",- perceived severity=critical, in domain .ZKO-2 brad...
2575.3	it's the wildcard & another prob	ICS::WOODCOCK		`Wed Mar 18 1992 20:23`	26
	It seems to be the wildcard. To remove some confusion we started fresh. We created a new top level domain and placed three domains within it. One node was then placed into each of the three lower level domains. A single rule was created for each node within these domains. expression=(occurs(node4 * circuit syn-* circuit down circuit fault)) All three rules were enabled by: enab domain .domain_1 rule * A single event which should have fired only one domain ended up highlighting all three domains. I then deleted these rules and created new rules taking out the wildcard for node4 * and placed an actual node name in (keeping the syn-). All appeared well at this level of testing. So we went on to production level testing. Two rules were created for each router with the following syntaxes: occurs(node4 <node> circuit syn- circuit down circuit fault) occurs(node4 <node> circuit syn-* circuit up) There are 50 routers in 12 domains so about 100 rules are enabled. Enable rules, force an event, .............. nothin'. Is their a limitation on the number of rules I can enable in x1.2.15 or is it something else??? any takers??? brad...
2575.4	to be qared	TOOK::CALLANDER	MCC = My Constant Companion	`Tue Apr 07 1992 16:18`	12
	the alarms in x1.2.15 is limited in the number of rules it can run based on the amount of memory you have. It is also my understanding that in the x1.2.15 alarms if you passed a wildcard down on the occurs, it simply passed it down to the AM and does not limit the wildcard to only those entities in your domain. This would explain the results that you are seeing. This was just retested, and the same results still occur. It will be qared by some one on the alarms team.
2575.5	qar 2530	ICS::WOODCOCK		`Tue Apr 07 1992 16:29`	5
	Already QARed about a week ago, #2530 thanks for the info, brad...