Alerting Survival Strategies
July 24, 2014

Larry Haig

Share this

(aka – “If that monitoring system wakes me up at 3am one more time … !”)

In considering alerting, the core issue is not whether a given tool will generate alerts, as anything sensible certainly will. Rather, the central problem is what could be termed the actionability of the alerts generated. Failure to flag issues related to poor performance is a clear no-no, but unfortunately over-alerting has the same effect, as these will rapidly be ignored.

Effective alert definition hinges on the determination of “normal” performance. Simplistically, this can be understood by testing across a business cycle (ideally, a minimum of 3-4 weeks). That is fine providing performance is reasonably stable. However, that is often not the case, particularly for applications experiencing large fluctuations in demand at different times of the day, week or year.

In such cases (which are extremely common), the difficulty becomes “at which point of the demand cycle should I base my alert threshold?” Too low, and your system is simply telling you that it’s lunchtime (or the weekend, or whenever greatest demand occurs). Too high, and you will miss issues occurring during periods of lower demand.

There are several approaches to this difficulty, of varying degrees of elegance:

■ Select tooling incorporating a sophisticated baseline algorithm - capable of applying alert thresholds dynamically based on time of day/week/month etc. Surprisingly, many major tools use extremely simplistic baseline models, but some (e.g. App Dynamics APM) certainly have an approach that assists. When selecting tooling, this is definitely an area that repays investigation.

■ Set up independent parallel (active monitoring) tests separated by “maintenance windows”, with different alert thresholds applied depending upon when they are run. This is a messy approach which comes with its own problems.

■ Look for proxies other than pure performance as alert metrics. Using this approach, a “catchall” performance threshold is set for performance that is manifestly poor regardless of when it is generated. This is supplemented by alerting based upon other factors flagging delivery issues – always providing that your monitoring system permits these. Examples include:

- Payload – error pages or partial downloads will have lower byte counts. Redirect failures (e.g. to mobile devices) will have higher than expected page weights.

- Number of objects

- Specific “flag” objects

■ Ensure confirmation before triggering alert. Some tooling will automatically generate confirmatory repeat testing; others enable triggers to be based on a specified number or percentage of total node results.

■ Gotchas – take account of these. Good test design, for example by controlling the bandwidth of end user testing to screen out results based on low connectivity tests, will improve the reliability of both alerts and results generally. As a more recent innovation, the advent of long polling / server push content can be extremely distortive of synthetic external responses, especially if not consistently included. In this case, page load end points need to be defined and incorporated into test scripts to prevent false positive alerts.

RUM based alerting presents its own difficulties. Because it is visitor traffic based, alert triggers based on a certain percentage of outliers may become distorted in very low traffic conditions. For example, a single long delivery time in a 10 minute timeslot where there are only 4 other “normal” visits would represent 20% of total traffic, whereas the same outlier recorded during a peak business period with 200 normal results is less than 1% of the total. RUM tooling that enables alert thresholds to be modified based on traffic are advantageous.

Although it does not address the “normal variation” issue, replacing binary trigger thresholds with dynamic ones (i.e. an alert state exists when the page/transaction slows by more than x% compared to its average over the past) can sometimes be useful.

Some form of trend state messaging (that is, condition worsening/improving) subsequent to initial alerting can serve to mitigate the amount of physical and emotional energy invoked by simple “fire alarm” alerting, particularly in the middle of the night.

An interesting (and long overdue) approach is to work directly on the source of the problem – download raw baseline data to a data warehouse, and apply sophisticated pattern recognition analysis. These algorithms can be developed in-house if time and appropriate skills are available, but unfortunately the mathematics is not necessarily trivial. Some standalone tooling exists and it is expected that more will follow as this approach proves its worth – the baseline management of most APM vendors represents an open goal at present.

Incidentally, such analysis is valuable not only for alerting but also for demand projection and capacity planning.

A few final thoughts on alerts post-generation. The more evolved alert management systems will permit conditional escalation of alerts – that is: alert this primary group first, then inform group B if the condition persists/worsens etc. Systems allowing custom coding around alerts (such as Neustar) are useful here, as are the specific third party alert handling systems available. If using tooling that only permits basic alerting, it is worth considering integration with external alerting, either of the “standalone service” type, or (in larger corporates) integral with central infrastructure management software.

Lastly, delivery mode. Email is the basis for many systems. It is tempting to regard SMS texting as beneficial, particularly in extreme cases. However, as anyone who has been sent a text on New Year’s Eve, only to have it show up 12 hours later knows, such store and forward systems can be false friends.

Larry Haig is Senior Consultant at Intechnica.

Share this

The Latest

March 22, 2018

In a previous blog, I talked about how to get visibility into cloud networks and resolve the first part of the problem. This included why visibility was important and how to accomplish it. Once you have that information, the next thing you need to understand is the performance of your cloud network so that you can answer important questions. This includes ...

March 21, 2018

A study conducted by Ponemon Institute and sponsored by IBM Resilient found that 77 percent of respondents admit they do not have a formal cyber security incident response plan (CSIRP) applied consistently across their organization ...

March 20, 2018

Most organizations understand that centralized network monitoring is vital to maintaining the health of critical infrastructure and applications. And while solutions using NetFlow undoubtedly help gain perspective into capacity planning, trend analysis, and utilization, they lack the important precision of packet-based analytics tools ...

March 16, 2018

The State of the Mainframe report from Syncsort revealed an increased focus on traditional data infrastructure optimization to control costs and help fund strategic organizational projects like AI, machine learning and predictive analytics in addition to widespread concern about meeting security and compliance requirements ...

March 15, 2018

The 2018 Software Fail Watch report from Tricentis investigated 606 failures that affected over 3.6 billion people and caused $1.7 trillion in lost revenue ...

March 14, 2018

Gartner predicts there will be nearly 21 billion connected “things” in use worldwide by 2020 – impressive numbers that should catch the attention of every CIO. IT leaders in nearly every vertical market will soon be inundated with the management of both the data from these devices as well as the management of the devices themselves, each of which require the same lifecycle management as any other IT equipment. This can be an overwhelming realization for CIOs who don’t have an adequate configuration management strategy for their current IT environments, the foundation upon which all future digital strategies – Internet-connected or otherwise – will be built ...

March 13, 2018

Many network operations teams question if they need to TAP their networks; perhaps they aren't familiar with test access points (TAPs), or they think there isn't an application that makes sense for them. Over the past decade, industry best-practice revealed that all network infrastructure should utilize a network TAP as the foundation for complete visibility. The following are the seven most popular applications for TAPs ...

March 12, 2018

Organizations are eager to adopt cloud based architectures in an effort to support their digital transformation efforts, drive efficiencies and strengthen customer satisfaction, according to a new online cloud usage survey conducted by Denodo ...

March 09, 2018

Globally, cloud data center traffic will represent 95 percent of total data center traffic by 2021, compared to 88 percent in 2016, according to the Cisco Global Cloud Index (2016-2021) ...

March 08, 2018

Enterprise cloud spending will grow rapidly over the next year, and yet 35 percent of cloud spend is wasted, according to The RightScale 2018 State of the Cloud Survey ...