Dear all,
We were having a question regarding the alarm template. In Eutelsat, you have developed a protocol (Eutelsat TAOS Manager) which updates the alarm template automatically depending on the values of an external DB.
There are some cases where we need to change the settings of the alarm template after a human action (i.e. Take alarm ownership). To give an example, there is a parameter which can take two values, P1 and P2. In the alarm template we have set to alarm a critical alarm when the value is P1 and normal the value P2.
We would like to create a mechanism that as soon as a human action is done (i.e. Take ownership of the critical alarm), then the alarm template will set the value P1 as normal and the value P2 as critical essentially inverting the two values.
Do you think that's possible with existing functionality?
If not, could we achieve this by scripting?
thanks!
Alex
Hi Alexandros, a Correlation rule can have an action "New alarm" to create a new alarm on a specific parameter, is this option been looked at?
Hello Kevin,
thanks for you reply!
Using the New Alarm from the correlation rule I will need to specify the element, paramter, index, and specific alarm value with a severity.
Our need to have this mechanism for multiple parameters/indexes/values, and it seems i will need to create many correlation rules, is that correct?
First you can filter the alarms out that trigger one correlation rule using an alarm filter, you can specify when the correlation rule should be trigger. If owner = user x and view = filter, alarm type is acknowledged etc.
You can also specify to group the alarms before they are evaluated in the alarm grouping section.
You also collect events for a time-period in the rule condition section.
I refer to https://docs.dataminer.services/user-guide/Advanced_Modules/Correlation/Managing_Correlation_rules/Adding_a_new_Correlation_rule.html and give it a try if it would suit your use-case.
This is an interesting use case – could you share more about P1 and P2?
If these are incidents priorities, would it make sense to have them as alarm properties rather than as possible parameter values?
I’d expect a critical alarm can be P2 if it is just loss of redundancy, while it becomes P1 if e.g. both PRI & SEC contribution links are down.