Bug 787227 - Using an Availability condition on a recovery Alert doesn't trigger Alert or Recovery
Using an Availability condition on a recovery Alert doesn't trigger Alert or ...
Product: JBoss Operations Network
Classification: JBoss
Component: Monitoring - Alerts (Show other bugs)
JON 3.0.0
All All
high Severity medium
: ---
: JON 3.1.2
Assigned To: RHQ Project Maintainer
Mike Foley
Depends On:
Blocks: 801504
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-02-03 10:55 EST by dsteigne
Modified: 2012-11-19 16:38 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 801504 (view as bug list)
Last Closed: 2012-11-15 22:23:51 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description dsteigne 2012-02-03 10:55:41 EST
Description of problem:
Using an Availability condition on a recovery Alert doesn't trigger Alert or Recovery.  If you define an Alert for Availability "Comes up" and use this as a Recovery Alert to re-enable another Alert Definition.  You never receive the alert for the Availability nor does it re-enable the other alert.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Define an alert "OOM" using the condition type "event detection", the event severity "error" and the regular expression "java.lang.OutOfMemoryError".
2. Add email notification and the "Restart" Resource Operation 
3. Select "Yes" for "Disable When Fired"
4. Define another alert "OOM (Recovery)" using condition type "Availability Change", Availability "Comes Up"
5. On the Recovery tab select the "OOM" Alert for Recover Alert.
6. Trigger an OOM error on the EAP server, I set the Max Heap size low.
7. The alert will trigger for OOM, it will be disabled and the Restart is triggered.
8. You can see that the EAP is restarted and running, but the "OOM (Recovery)" alert is not triggered, nor does it re-enable the "OOM" Alert.
9. Then change the condition type on the "OOM (Recovery)" to say "event detection" INFO on the Microcontainer started in message:
INFO  [org.jboss.bootstrap.microcontainer.ServerImpl] (main) JBoss (Microcontainer) [5.2.0.GA_SOA (build: SVNTag=5.2.0.GA_SOA date=201111090730)] Started in 1m:34s:817ms
10. With this condition type everything works, "OOM (Recovery)" alert is fired and it re-enables the "OOM" Alert.

Actual results:

Alert is not triggered and recover alert is not re-enabled.

Expected results:

Alert is triggered and recover alert is re-enabled.
Comment 1 Charles Crouch 2012-03-08 11:09:24 EST
Are you sure that the OOM of the AS instance and the restart operation actually triggered a change in the availability of the EAP Server? If you choose the EAP server from the inventory then go to its Monitoring>Availability subtab do you see a row in there indicating the EAP instance was unavailable at the time of the OOM condition and then showing available again after the restart operation completed?
Comment 2 dsteigne 2012-03-08 11:59:43 EST
Yes, both conditions show on the Availability tab
Comment 3 Jay Shaughnessy 2012-05-09 15:38:55 EDT
See comments in bug 801504
Comment 4 Charles Crouch 2012-11-05 16:26:38 EST
Jay was specifically referring to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801504#c3
Comment 5 Charles Crouch 2012-11-06 15:10:02 EST
Triage: If there is nothing to do here, we should close.
Comment 6 Larry O'Leary 2012-11-15 22:23:51 EST
I agree with comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801504#c3 in upstream bug 801504. The recovery alert never gets triggered here because the availability never actually changed. When the OOM is thrown in the EAP log and the "restart" alert is fired due to the event, the availability was never actually down. So, the restart operation is invoked, but the seeing that the restart happens between availability checks, the EAP instance was never DOWN and therefore, can not be seen as Goes Up.

Which is exactly as Charles described it in comment 1. After reviewing the original case which raised this issue it appears that the user was experiencing a configuration issue combined with what comment 1 suggested. I am closing this as NOTABUG.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.