Page 1 of 1
Prioritizing Services
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 10:42 am
by sujitt
In an organization there are high criticical high prioriy systems /services and lower ones. It would be nice to have field at the service group level called priority which could be passed on to incident or ticket management systems to report on.
Re: Prioritizing Services
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 10:58 am
by slansing
Where would you imagine seeing this? Typically third party systems handle tickets/incidents from nagios XI via notifications. Would the solution you use be able to regex match the subject line of a notification, for example:
Service Alert - myhost / host memory check is CRITICAL / **HIGH PRIORITY**
This could be added by you via the use of custom notification handlers, you could assign the high priority template to hosts/services in that list, the medium priority template to the medium priority hosts/services, etc.
Re: Prioritizing Services
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 10:58 am
by lmiltchev
You can easily create a new service group (CCM->Service Groups->Add New), for example called "High Priority", and add all of the high-priority services as members to this service group.
Re: Prioritizing Services
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 11:02 am
by sujitt
I am using service groups mapped to teams to which the tickets need to be assigned to.
Re: Prioritizing Services
Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 11:43 am
by sreinhardt
Presently this would need to be defined within individual hosts\services as a custom variable, however it definitely can be done with templates and such as well. So it absolutely can be done now, just in a little different manner than you had imagined.
However adding this field to service groups would not be a feature of XI, but actually core, as this is a limitation, per say, of the service group object definition. You are absolutely welcome to make a feature request on tracker.nagios.org, but I have a feeling that it will get rejected due to the ability to do so with templating and regular object definitions. This is not to say that it is a bad idea or something that others would not want as well, just that I think the feeling will be that similar enough functionality is already available and therefore the change is not likely warranted. If you do post it as a feature request and others would like it as well, it very well may get included.