Community
- Command Central
- MVP Program
- Monthly Mission
- Blogs
- Groups
- Events
- Media Vault
Products
- Observability
- Network Management
- Application Management
- IT Security
- IT Service Management
- System Management
- Database Management
Content Exchange
- SolarWinds Platform
- Server & Application Monitor
- Database Performance Analyzer
- Server Configuration Monitor
- Network Performance Monitor
- Network Configuration Manager
- SQL Sentry
- Web Help Desk
Free Tools & Trials

Alerting Problem

Hi, I have an alert set up for high percent utilization on interfaces.

now this alert works fine but I want to exclude alarming on all interfaces which include "Backup" either on the Interface description (the description in the cisco config that is read out by orion) or in the nodename of the interface.

I am not sure on how to go at this as there is no "does not contain" in the alert triggers and the "none" and "not all" in the condition groups are buggy and I dont know how they will be changed in the future so I would like not to use them.

I have opened up a case (#153241) but I was told that it is not at all possible to exclude this way but only by custom properties. I cant believe that its not possible to do this...

Anyone have an idea?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

ebradford

NOT (expression1 AND expression2) is equivalent to ((NOT expression1) OR (NOT expression2))

Solarwinds uses the words "ALL" and "NOT ALL". "ALL" is definately "AND".

Perhaps Solarwinds meant for "NOT ALL" to mean "AND NOT", but that is different from "NOT AND".

The way Solarwinds currently has it implemented, ALL = AND, NOT ALL = NOT AND, ANY = OR, and lastly None = NOT ANY = NOT OR. Their implementation is correct according to the rules of logic.

NOT ALL is the opposite result of a test of all members in a group against a condition. But ALL NOT is the ANDed summary of each member in a group against a negative condition.

You have three apples, one of which is green, two are red.

ALL: All apples are red = false. Every apple must be red for this statement to be true; if any one or more apples are anther color, then the statement is false.

NOT ALL: Not all apples are red = true = NOT [apple1 is red AND apple2 is red AND apple3 is red] = NOT [false AND true AND true] = NOT [false] = true. This statement is true when any one or more apple is not red; but it will be false only when every apple is red.

ALL NOT: All apples are not red = false. Summarize[apple1 is NOT red AND apple2 is NOT red AND apple3 is NOT red] = [true AND false AND false] = false. This statement will be true only when every apple is some other color than red.

OR: Any apple is red = true = [apple1 is red OR apple2 is red OR apple3 is red] = [false OR true OR true] = true. If any apple is red, then the statement will be true; the statement will be false only if every apple is some other color than red.

NOT OR: Not any apple is red = false = NOT [apple1 is red OR apple2 is red OR apple3 is red] = NOT [false OR true OR true] = NOT [true] = false. This statement will be false when any one or more apple is red; it is true only when every apple is some other color than red. NOT OR the logical equivalent of ALL NOT.

OR NOT: Any apple is NOT red = true = [apple1 is NOT red OR apple2 is NOT red OR apple3 is NOT red] = [true OR false OR false] = true. This statement is true when any one or more apple is not red; this statement will only be false if all apples are red. OR NOT is equivalent to NOT ALL.

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit more. Solarwind's current implementation is correct according to the rules of logical operands; it is not flipped; ther is no bug. I strongly advise Solarwinds to not "correct" their implementation, because if they do, the results will then be inconsistent and illogical.

All comments

sedmo

You can do this by using a condition group where "none of the following apply". See the screenshot for an example.

Questionario

but the "none" and "not all" are buggy and currently "not all" functionality is exchanged by "none" and I dont know how this behaviour will change with updates in the future which is why I would like to avoid this as SolarWinds strongly recommends not to use those at all.

scottd

We are using 'none' for exclusions with success. Perhaps you could post a screen shot of your condition...

sedmo

I'm not aware of any "buggyness" with using the "none" condition. I'm also not aware of Solarwinds suggesting this configuration not be used. In fact, my perception was that this is a commonly used configuration but perhaps my perception is wrong. Is this information that Solarwinds support gave you or something that's posted here on Thwack?

mcbridea

It is true that the none and not all logic are flipped. Because you are using a single simple condition in the none condition group this is moot. Looks like Sedmo's trigger will work.

Andy