topic OM 4.0.2 question/request in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20132#M4318 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Can the timestamp from "dfm event list" output be made consistent for events?&nbsp; Right now once an event is &gt; 6 months old the event doesn't list the hours and minutes and we have to go into "dfm detail" output to get that time. </P><P></P><P>We have a performance threshold setup and it is tied to various filers.&nbsp; Over the years the number of alerts from this threshold being breached have accumulated, and we can get an idea on which filer is generating the alerts, and when.&nbsp; We rely on the time stamp from dfm event list output for this, and I see that the timestamp scheme changes once the event is &gt; 6months old.&nbsp; Can this be made consistent?&nbsp; I'll give you an example:</P><P></P><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>777901&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>26 Nov 18:21</TD></TR><TR><TD>773266&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>14 Nov 07:15</TD></TR><TR><TD>758609&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>04 Nov&nbsp; 2012</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P></P><P>How we use data is that that we graph the number of alerts by the hour, so we know that volume 25329 generated one alert between 07:00-08:00, another one between 18:00-19:00, and so on.&nbsp; Once we get enough of these alerts and then we can map out the hours on which the largest number of alerts are generated(11pm-1am, for example).</P><P></P><P>Today being 5/7/2013, Nov 14 is less than 6 months old so it shows the time, and Nov 04 is more than 6 months old so the hh:mm part goes away and we see "2012"&nbsp; This is generally fine with generating a graph like this since older data points are less valuable than the more recent data for this purpose, but if it the output format stayed consistent like "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss", then the it is more predictable and would help us map out the problem periods more accurately.&nbsp; </P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:03:27 GMT rmatsumoto 2025-06-05T06:03:27Z OM 4.0.2 question/request https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20132#M4318 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Can the timestamp from "dfm event list" output be made consistent for events?&nbsp; Right now once an event is &gt; 6 months old the event doesn't list the hours and minutes and we have to go into "dfm detail" output to get that time. </P><P></P><P>We have a performance threshold setup and it is tied to various filers.&nbsp; Over the years the number of alerts from this threshold being breached have accumulated, and we can get an idea on which filer is generating the alerts, and when.&nbsp; We rely on the time stamp from dfm event list output for this, and I see that the timestamp scheme changes once the event is &gt; 6months old.&nbsp; Can this be made consistent?&nbsp; I'll give you an example:</P><P></P><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>777901&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>26 Nov 18:21</TD></TR><TR><TD>773266&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>14 Nov 07:15</TD></TR><TR><TD>758609&nbsp; 25329 perf:new_50ms_and_10MBs:breached Error&nbsp; </TD><TD>04 Nov&nbsp; 2012</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P></P><P>How we use data is that that we graph the number of alerts by the hour, so we know that volume 25329 generated one alert between 07:00-08:00, another one between 18:00-19:00, and so on.&nbsp; Once we get enough of these alerts and then we can map out the hours on which the largest number of alerts are generated(11pm-1am, for example).</P><P></P><P>Today being 5/7/2013, Nov 14 is less than 6 months old so it shows the time, and Nov 04 is more than 6 months old so the hh:mm part goes away and we see "2012"&nbsp; This is generally fine with generating a graph like this since older data points are less valuable than the more recent data for this purpose, but if it the output format stayed consistent like "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss", then the it is more predictable and would help us map out the problem periods more accurately.&nbsp; </P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:03:27 GMT https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20132#M4318 rmatsumoto 2025-06-05T06:03:27Z Re: OM 4.0.2 question/request https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20137#M4320 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi,</P><P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Firstly, I suggest you move to version 5.0.2P1 or 5.2. In 5.0 and later we have view for Events which can give you what you are looking for.</P><P>Also instead of using dfm event list, use the report cli instead.</P><P>dfm report view events-history &lt;volume id&gt;</P><P></P><P>Regards</P><P>adai</P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 09 May 2013 03:47:16 GMT https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20137#M4320 adaikkap 2013-05-09T03:47:16Z Re: OM 4.0.2 question/request https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20142#M4322 <HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY><P>Hi </P><P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Just to let you know you are running on a release that's at least 3 year old. Pls move to recent version.</P><P></P><P>Regards</P><P>adai</P></BODY></HTML> Thu, 09 May 2013 03:48:39 GMT https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/OM-4-0-2-question-request/m-p/20142#M4322 adaikkap 2013-05-09T03:48:39Z