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.
  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 wi
  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 ale
  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'?