Skip to main content

Monitoring Types

I often get asked when discussing operational activities or event management about how we should monitor our environment.  There are several methods to accomplish this depending on what you’re monitoring, what resources you have available and the criticality of what you’re monitoring.  Defining these elements will then help you choose one or more of the following methods.


Active monitoring:
  • Ongoing device interrogation to determine its status.
  • Resource intensive.
  • Usually used proactively for critical devices or systems
Passive monitoring:
  • Transmits event to a listening device.
  • Most commonly used method
  • Requires good definition of events and instrumentation of systems being monitored.
Reactive Monitoring:
  • Requests or triggers action following an event or failure
  • Used for exceptions and normal operations
  • Can be used to diagnose which device is causing the failure and under what conditions.
Proactive Monitoring:
  • Used to detect event patterns that can indicate a system or service is about to fail.
  • Used to determine real time status of a device or system
  • Usually used for critical components or following the recovery of a failed device to ensure full recovery has taken place
  • Records are correlated over time to build trends or patterns.  These patterns are then defined and programmed into correlation engines for future recognition.
Continuous Monitoring:
  • Focus on real time monitoring to ensure compliance to a performance norm.
  • Differs from Active Monitoring which may not be continuous.
  • This, like Active Monitoring, can be resource intensive so normally reserved for critical services or components.
Exception –Based Monitoring:
  • Does not report on real time performance but detects and reports on exceptions.
  • Less resource intensive more cost effective.
  • May result in lengthier outages (reactive).
  • Used on less critical systems or services.
  • Use must be reflected in SLAs and OLAs.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner?

I was recently asked to clarify the roles of the Process Owner, Process Manager and Process Practitioner and wanted to share this with you.

Roles and Responsibilities:
Process Owner – this individual is “Accountable” for the process. They are the goto person and represent this process across the entire organization. They will ensure that the process is clearly defined, designed and documented. They will ensure that the process has a set of Policies for governance.Example: The process owner for Incident management will ensure that all of the activities to Identify, Record, Categorize, Investigate, … all the way to closing the incident are defined and documented with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, handoffs, and deliverables. An example of a policy in could be… “All Incidents must be logged”. Policies are rules that govern the process. Process Owner ensures that all Process activities, (what to do), Procedures (details on how to perform the activity) and the policies (r…

How Does ITIL Help in the Management of the SDLC?

I was recently asked how ITIL helps in the management of the SDLC (Software Development Lifecycle).  Simply put... SDLC is a Lifecycle approach to produce the software or the "product".  ITIL is a Lifecycle approach that focuses on the "service".
I’ll start by reviewing both SDLC and ITIL Lifecycles and then summarize:
SDLC  -  The intent of an SDLC process is to help produce a product that is cost-efficient, effective and of high quality. Once an application is created, the SDLC maps the proper deployment of the software into the live environment. The SDLC methodology usually contains the following stages: Analysis (requirements and design), construction, testing, release and maintenance.  The focus here is on the Software.  Most organizations will use an Agile or Waterfall approach to implement the software through the Software Development Lifecycle.
ITIL  -  is a best practice for IT service management (ITSM) that focuses on aligning IT services with the needs …

Incidents when a Defect is Involved

Question: We currently track defects in a separate system than our ticket management system. With that said, my question is does anyone have suggestions and/or best practices on how to handle incidents when a defect is involved? Should the incident be closed since the defect is being worked on in another defect tracking system if it is noted in the incident ticket? I am considering creating an incident statuses of 'closed-unresolved' so the incident can still be reported on in our ticket management system but know it is being worked on/tracked in the defect system. With defects, it is possible that we may never work on them because they are very low priority and the impact is low to the user. However, in some cases a defect is being worked on. Should we create a problem ticket instead?
Thanks, René W.

Answer: RenĂ©. In ITIL, the activity you are describing is handled by the Problem Management process. ITIL does not use the term “defect” but it does use the term “known error” to…