[icinga-devel] clearing & updating icinga_acknowledgements table
michael.friedrich at univie.ac.at
Mon Feb 8 19:00:35 CET 2010
Bruce Pennypacker wrote:
> Thanks for the information. Is there a document somewhere that
> describes in detail what each table is meant for, what data they're
> meant to hold, etc?
Currently IDOUtils are coming from original NDOUtils where the table
design and relationships have been described here:
But thanks for the hint we might add extended documentation for idoutils
> My confusion stems from the fact that there is both a comments and a
> commenthistory table, but just an acknowledgements table that you
> indicate is for historical data as well. If, as you're suggesting, the
> acknowledgements table is meant for historical data only then I'd argue
> that it should be renamed to something like acknowledgementhistory so
> that it's clear what's in it.
The attempt with having a live and historical db slows down database
insertions, currently it's a lot of querying. Maybe we can get a better
approach when splitting idoutils directly into live data only and
historical data only.
I know about those problems but it's difficult to fix them in the
current code base as you might have seen already.
> I guess I'm just not clear as to why comments and acknowledgments are
> being handled so differently in idodb. When you acknowledge a service
> problem in Icinga it creates a servicecomment object in status.dat, so
> that implies that it's just a special type of comment. In idodb it adds
> an entry to the acknowlegedments table but I don't see anything show up
> in either the comments or commenthistory tables. From what I now
> understand I believe this is expected behavior.
I don't know that either... I don't want to complain about the origin
and the gotten code but to improve that. But there are a lot of things
implying data handling I don't really understand. I'll take them
currently "as is" because my focus is on oracle support and improved
> If I manually add either a service or host comment then I see entries
> for them appear in both the comments and commenthistory table.
> In both cases all the comments (both the service outage acknowledgement
> and the manually entered ones) are displayed in Icinga on the Comments
> page. The type is set to either Acknowledgment or User as expected.
> If I then delete the user service/host comments they are deleted from
> the comments table but the historical data remains in the commenthistory
> Acknowledgments are removed from status.dat and from the Comments page
> either when the problem clears or when the user deletes the associated
> comment just like they can with other comments. So aside from the fact
> that an acknowledgment is a special type of comment it behaves virtually
> identically within Icinga itself. For that reason I'd argue that they
> should be cleared from the acknowlegements table as well. The comments
> table displays a current snapshot of comments. The commenthistory table
> stores a history of all comments. It seems to me that the
> acknowledgments table should behave like the comments table, and a new
> acknowledgementhistory table should be added that maintains a history so
> that all the processing of both comments and acknowledgments is handled
We might add a housekeeping option in ido2db.cfg and clearing data
periodically if set to an appropriate value. This implies improved
housekeeping though - that is something in progress.
> Hopefully I'm making myself clear here....
> The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
> Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
> Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
> Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
> icinga-devel mailing list
> icinga-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the icinga-devel