What is the correct syntax for a correlation rule script condition to count the number of alarms in a bucket with a certain severity?
Use case: I have 5 IRD elements receiving a carrier from the same transmitting antenna. I want to trigger the correlation rule (to switch to another antenna) if all IRDs that are not in timeout give a critical alarm on their lock state.
Was thinking of a script condition like this: count(severity(critical)) == 5 - count(severity(timeout)) but I'm stuck on syntax...
Hi Jochen,
Maybe not the answer you are looking for, but you could also create a service in DataMiner to represent that physical antenna based on information received via the batch of IRDs linked to it.
you could exclude your devices in timeout to avoid them impacting the service state.
If you do not want timeouts to be included in the alarm status of the service, clear the checkbox Include timeouts in alarm status of the service. By default, this option is selected.
reference: Adding a service | DataMiner Docs
You can now configure the service using conditions for the alarm impact to only allow impact when all 5 of your IRD lock state parameters are failing.
This service is now representing a basic form of your Antenna reception quality. You could further extend this service to make it smarter and expose also other metrics to build. you could even go with a service template, and make it easy to visualize your complete antenna park.
Have fun 😉
need a recap on creating services? Please have a look here:
Rui's Rapid Recap - Creating a service - DataMiner Dojo
Having a service representing your antenna is also a good opportunity to add a Visual that can serve to link towards other useful information in regards to your antenna. (location data, weather data, Spectrum analysis of your RF signals and many more)
FYI, I’d still like to know the syntax for the correlation rule. When doing it with a service like you described, I require quite some conditions (amount is growing fast with the number of devices in the service)
Nice alternative! Going to try that!