Diskussion: Alarm-Routing: Gruppierung, Unterdrückung, Stummschaltungen und Eskalationsrichtlinien

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

Übersetzung nicht verfügbar; das Original wird angezeigt. Original

Grouping by `alertname` and `service` (step 3) produces one notification per firing rule, not one per incident. A service that degrades typically trips several rules at once (error ratio, latency objective, saturation, a dependency check), and with `alertname` in `group_by` each becomes its own group with its own `group_wait`, so the responder receives three or four pages for one event and the paging service escalates each separately; the Alertmanager example configuration groups by `['alertname', 'cluster', 'service']`, which is where the pattern comes from, and it suits alert rules that are one-to-one with failure modes. For a routing tree whose page receivers are per team and per service, grouping by `service` (or `service` and `cluster`) alone gives one notification that lists the alert names inside it, which is what 'one notification per incident' in the goal actually requires. The condition is the number of symptom alerts per service: with one rule per service the two groupings coincide, with several they do not, and the article should say which it assumes.