BB Unix Network Monitor - Message
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: {bb} bb-msgstab behaviour
- To: bb@bb4.com
- Subject: Re: {bb} bb-msgstab behaviour
- From: Philip Clark <bblist@cannae.uklinux.net>
- Date: 10 May 2006 00:59:02 +0100
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
- Content-type: text/plain
- In-reply-to: <OF796D820B.993DD1A2-ONC1257164.0054392B-C1257164.0054C900@deutsche-boerse.c om>
- References: <OF796D820B.993DD1A2-ONC1257164.0054392B-C1257164.0054C900@deutsche-boerse.c om>
- Reply-to: bb@bb4.com
- Sender: owner-bb@bb4.com
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 16:26, bbmail@deutsche-boerse.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the odd (in my eyes) behaviour that an error in /var/adm/messages
> is shown twice on BB.
> In bb-msgstab I have the following:
>
> : /var/adm/messages : : WARNING;Corrected system bus (CE) Event : NOTICE :
> forceload.*failed
>
> So I suppose if the following message appears in /var/adm/messages BB
> would go yellow:
>
> ... NOTICE: [AFT0] Corrected system bus (CE) Event detected by CPU34 ...
>
> But it goes red and shows the above error twice (one time as a warning and
> additional to that as an error).
> It is no option to turn off NOTICE as "red indicator".
>
> Running BB 1.9c on Solaris 9.
Sorry Torsten, that last reply was to the wrong question :(
I would think that you have three options:
1. Modify the "red strings" clause to a regular expression that
will match the "NOTICE" lines but not the "system bus" ones.
This can get very ugly depending on how specific you need to be.
2. Modify bb-msgs.sh so that "yellow" matches suppress "red" ones
where a line matches both.
3. Modify bb-msgs.sh to provide an extra field to provide separate
definitions for "ignore on yellow" and "ignore on red" definitions.
Then you could add the "system bus" string to the "ignore on red"
part.
I would tend to favour the last option. I might be a little more
verbose to configure, but it would retain more flexibility.
Cheers, Phil.
--
There are no physicists in the hottest parts of hell, because the
existence of a "hottest part" implies a temperature difference and
any marginally competent physicist would immediately use this to
run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably
cool. This is obviously impossible. (Richard Davisson)
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To unsubscribe from this list, or to subscribe to the bb-digest list
send e-mail to mailto:majordomo@bb4.com with unsubscribe bb -and/or-
subscribe bb-digest in the BODY of the message.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index