Universal Monitoring Crimes and What to Do About Them - Part 1
May 22, 2018

Leon Adato
SolarWinds

Share this

Monitoring is a critical aspect of any data center operation, yet it often remains the black sheep of an organization's IT strategy: an afterthought rather than a core competency. Because of this, many enterprises have a monitoring solution that appears to have been built by a flock of "IT seagulls" — technicians who swoop in, drop a smelly and offensive payload, and swoop out. Over time, the result is layer upon layer of offensive payloads that are all in the same general place (your monitoring solution) but have no coherent strategy or integration.

Believe it or not, this is a salvageable scenario. By applying a few basic techniques and monitoring discipline, you can turn a disorganized pile of noise into a monitoring solution that provides actionable insight. For the purposes of this piece, let's assume you've at least implemented some type of monitoring solution within your environment.

At its core, the principle of monitoring as a foundational IT discipline is designed to help IT professionals escape the short-term, reactive nature of administration, often caused by insufficient monitoring, and become more proactive and strategic. All too often, however, organizations are instead bogged down by monitoring systems that are improperly tuned — or not tuned at all — for their environment and business needs. This results in unnecessary or incorrect alerts that introduce more chaos and noise than order and insight, and as a result, cause your staff to value monitoring even less.

So, to help your organization increase data center efficiency and get the most benefit out of your monitoring solutions, here are the top five universal monitoring crimes and what you can do about them:

1. Fixed thresholds

Monitoring systems that trigger any type of alert at a fixed value for a group of devices are the "weak tea" of solutions. While general thresholds can be established, it is statistically impossible that every single device is going to adhere to the same one, and extremely improbable that even a majority will.

Even a single server has utilization that varies from day to day. A server that usually runs at 50 percent CPU, for example, but spikes to 95 percent at the end of the month is perfectly normal — but fixed thresholds can cause this spike to trigger. The result is that many organizations create multiple versions of the same alert (CPU Alert for Windows IIS-DMZ; CPU Alert for Windows IIS-core; CPU Alert for Windows Exchange CAS, and so on). And even then, fixed thresholds usually throw more false positives than anyone wants.

What to do about it:

■ GOOD: Enable per-device (and per-service) thresholds. Whether you do this within the tool or via customizations, you should ultimately be able to have a specific threshold for each device so that machines that have a specific threshold trigger at the correct time, and those that do not get the default.

■ BETTER: Use existing monitoring data to establish baselines for "normal" and then trigger when usage deviates from that baseline. Note that you may need to consider how to address edge cases that may require a second condition to help define when a threshold is triggered.

2. Lack of monitoring system oversight

While it's certainly important to have a tool or set of tools that monitor and alert on mission-critical systems, it's also important to have some sort of system in place to identify problems within the monitoring solution itself.

What to do about it: Set up a separate instance of a monitoring solution that keeps track of the primary, or production, monitoring system. It can be another copy of the same tool or tools you are using in production, or a separate solution, such as open source, vendor-provided, etc.

For another option to address this, see the discussion on lab and test environments in Part 2 of this blog.

3. Instant alerts

There are endless reasons why instant alerts — when your monitoring system triggers alerts as soon as a condition is detected — can cause chaos in your data center. For one thing, monitoring systems are not infallible and may detect "false positive" alerts that don't truly require a remediation response. For another, it's not uncommon for problems to appear for a moment and then disappear. Still some other problems aren't actionable until they've persisted for a certain amount of time. You get the idea.

What to do about it: Build a time delay into your monitoring system's trigger logic where a CPU alert, for example, would need to have all of the specified conditions persist for something like 10 minutes before any action would be needed. Spikes lasting longer than 10 minutes would require more direct intervention while anything less represents a temporary spike in activity that doesn't necessarily indicate a true problem.

Read Universal Monitoring Crimes and What to Do About Them - Part 2, for more monitoring tips.

Leon Adato is a Head Geek at SolarWinds
Share this

The Latest

March 27, 2023

To achieve maximum availability, IT leaders must employ domain-agnostic solutions that identify and escalate issues across all telemetry points. These technologies, which we refer to as Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations, create convergence — in other words, they provide IT and DevOps teams with the full picture of event management and downtime ...

March 23, 2023

APMdigest and leading IT research firm Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) are partnering to bring you the EMA-APMdigest Podcast, a new podcast focused on the latest technologies impacting IT Operations. In Episode 2 - Part 1 Pete Goldin, Editor and Publisher of APMdigest, discusses Network Observability with Shamus McGillicuddy, Vice President of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA ...

March 22, 2023

CIOs have stepped into the role of digital leader and strategic advisor, according to the 2023 Global CIO Survey from Logicalis ...

March 21, 2023

Synthetic monitoring is crucial to deploy code with confidence as catching bugs with E2E tests on staging is becoming increasingly difficult. It isn't trivial to provide realistic staging systems, especially because today's apps are intertwined with many third-party APIs ...

March 20, 2023

Recent EMA field research found that ServiceOps is either an active effort or a formal initiative in 78% of the organizations represented by a global panel of 400+ IT leaders. It is relatively early but gaining momentum across industries and organizations of all sizes globally ...

March 16, 2023

Managing availability and performance within SAP environments has long been a challenge for IT teams. But as IT environments grow more complex and dynamic, and the speed of innovation in almost every industry continues to accelerate, this situation is becoming a whole lot worse ...

March 15, 2023

Harnessing the power of network-derived intelligence and insights is critical in detecting today's increasingly sophisticated security threats across hybrid and multi-cloud infrastructure, according to a new research study from IDC ...

March 14, 2023

Recent research suggests that many organizations are paying for more software than they need. If organizations are looking to reduce IT spend, leaders should take a closer look at the tools being offered to employees, as not all software is essential ...

March 13, 2023

Organizations are challenged by tool sprawl and data source overload, according to the Grafana Labs Observability Survey 2023, with 52% of respondents reporting that their companies use 6 or more observability tools, including 11% that use 16 or more.

March 09, 2023

An array of tools purport to maintain availability — the trick is sorting through the noise to find the right one. Let us discuss why availability is so important and then unpack the ROI of deploying Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations (AIOps) during an economic downturn ...