[ClusterLabs] Coming in 1.1.15: Event-driven alerts

[Kristoffer Grönlund]

Klaus Wenninger <kwenning at redhat.com> writes:

> On 04/25/2016 08:03 AM, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
>>> In the current implementation, meta-attributes and instance attributes
>>> may also be specified within the <recipient> block, in which case they
>>> override any values specified in the <alert> block when sent to that
>>> recipient. Whether this stays in the final 1.1.15 release or not depends
>>> on whether people find this to be useful, or confusing.
>> Do you have any current use for this? My immediate thought is that
>> allowing rule expressions in the <alert> level meta and instance
>> attributes would be both more expressive and less confusing.
> Do you refer to the global idea of repeated recipient-sections here or
> just to the overwriting of instance/meta-attributes of the alert-section
> by those in the recipient-section?
>

The second, overwriting instance/meta-attributes by those in the
recipient-section.

> A guy on the list was complaining that it was called recipient & value
> reading the example logging to a log-file. So an instance-attribute called
> logfile could be an example.
> Certain recipients (whatever a recipient might be ...) might react
> quicker and others might be more lame so a timeout per recipient
> might make sense.
> In cases of recipients being email-destination-addresses it might
> be interesting to be able to as well specify a sender-address or
> an smtp-server to use.
> Could you give examples for how you would like to use rule-expressions -
> especially if you want to replace the recipient-sections...

I haven't thought through the implications completely, but my thought is
that for primitives, for example, you would create multiple
instance-attribute entries with rule expressions that determine which
value is applied under which conditions (so, on this node set FOO to
this value, on that node set FOO to that value, etc.).

First of all I would ask if rule expressions already are permitted in
instance-attribute tags in the alert tag? If so, then making it possible
to create rule expressions that check against the recipient would make
sense as well as remove the need to allow overrides in each recipient
tag.

But I don't have any concrete use case either way, I am only looking at
this from a consistency point of view.

>
>> Cheers,
>> Kristoffer
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

-- 
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund at suse.com