Would like to create maintenance windows via the API for bulk patching and other situations where application/service may or may not be gracefully shutdown.
My understanding is that the MW exclusion must be applied to the same entity type as the alert setting to be effective, for example to suppress alerting attached to a process group I will need to include in the MW definition that process group id.
This can be achieved via the API but my concern is the size and complexity of the MW definition when used with many hosts.
I would like to avoid tagging due to the number already in our system.
My question is - to suppress ALL alerting from a host do I need to include all entities associated with the host or is there a more efficient way to do this?
Solved! Go to Solution.
My personal experience taught me that if I put only a host for the maintenance windows (especially the full-stack one), the problem will still be generated for the processes availability, network retransmissions, etc., etc.
Therefore, whenever I plan to do maintenance windows then, I make sure to cover all the entities in one tagging rule e.g. host, processes, services, custom devices, synthetic, etc to make sure the problem is not taking a sneaky way to appear.
Agree with Babar, tagging is the most efficient and dynamic way. Rather than adding all required filters in a MW definition. Unfortunately, like with tagging and management zones, you can't select options like 'apply to (processes) running on matching (hosts)'