ntw2

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ntw2

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm glad you asked! It would be set back to false when we mark it as resolved either in Connectwise Manage or in LM, a feature that doesn't currently exist. This way, the alerts generated by flapping would be ingested into the same ticket as updates, but wouldn't change the status of the ticket. This is the workflow that I'd like to see with LM and Connectwise Manage which N-Central has accomplished with CWM: Alert threshold for Datapoint A is crossed, alert raised, ticket 001 created, status New. Alert status clears, ticket 001 is updated, status remains unchanged. Tech investigates the issue, communicates with the client, makes valuable internal notes, and resolves it. Marks ticket as Solved in CWM. Alert in LM clears because the datapoint cleared, not because the ticket was marked as Solved in CWM. Days/weeks/months/eons pass. Alert threshold for Datapoint A is crossed, alert raised, ticket 001 is reopened thereby retaining the earlier communication with the client, the internal notes, etc. Status changes from Solved to New, Ack, Re-opened - not terribly important. The points are: There should be a one-to-one relationship between an alert raised by a datapoint its ticket; flapping of a datapoint's status should update its ticket, not under any circumstances create a new ticket. A CWM ticket raised by LM should remain open until Solved in CWM. LM should be the truth; the status of an LM alert should not be impacted by the status of its ticket in CWM. I hope this helps, Nate
  2. Mike, thank you for taking the time to patiently illustrate what's going on. It certainly helped me and I think it will help others. Man, I wish that was a system-wide option! Yes! Yes, I do! It would seem that if LM had logic like the below, we could approximate a solution to the flapping issue: if threshold crossed and $datapoint.$alerthasbeenraised = false then raise alert and set $datapoint.$alerthasbeenraised = true ____________________ Can you help me reconcile these two ideas? Sounds like you're saying that keeping an alert from clearing will keep a new ticket from being created, yet... Thanks again!
  3. Hi, Mike Thank you for writing. You asked: Yes, that's the behavior I'm referring to. Help me reconcile these two ideas: As I read this, it says, "LM doesn't consider how long an alert has been cleared before it sends an Active message on re-occurring alert." and "you can modify this behavior by changing the Alert Clear Interval" I swear I'm not being argumentative! Can you help me square these two seeming conflicting ideas? FWIW, in an attempt to keep new, redundant (to me) tickets from being created, I've configured our CWM integration so that LM alerts that to to Cleared status sets/keeps the CWM ticket status to Ack, not Cleared, yet new tickets are being created while leaving the ticket generated by the original LM alert in Ack status.
  4. For more than a year, I've gone back and forth with LM support about LM's seeming inability to update CWM tickets instead of creating a new ticket every time a datapoint's status flaps. LM support swears that this behavior is by design, but can't identify a use case for it. Moreover, this documentation says that it should be able to update tickets: https://www.logicmonitor.com/support/alerts/integrations/connectwise-integration/?_ga=2.193114093.1167024280.1578609865-61119326.1554263269 Does anyone else's LM update CWM tickets, or is their documentation wrong?
  5. Yes, exactly this and not the "automatically discovered Topology mapping relationships " feature.
  6. @Chris Sternberg Was there a regression in a recent LM release which broke the dependencies feature that you developed? Our dependencies were working until a few weeks ago.
  7. @Steve Francis Thank you for this, Steve! Can website ping checks be used as primary devices/values for 'depends_on'?