• Forums
    • Public Forums
      • Community Connect
      • Dynatrace
        • Dynatrace Open Q&A
      • Application Monitoring & UEM
        • AppMon & UEM Open Q&A
      • Network Application Monitoring
        • NAM Open Q&A
  • Home /
  • Public Forums /
  • Application Monitoring & UEM /
  • AppMon & UEM Open Q&A /
avatar image
Question by Alberto D. · Aug 09, 2017 at 08:40 AM · appmon 7 business transaction

Business Transactions Splitting grouping

Hi,

I have created several BT's with splitting criteria (i.e: methods from EndPoint, Soap Actions defined by Header Values, etc). As there are a lot of splitting results, I had to restrict results and here the problem comes. If I limit the Splitting criteria to a Minimum Contribution (5%), in the result I find the hateful <..>. As I am creating alert to Operations team I need to avoid "<..>" result. Do you know how to aproach this?

Thanks in advance.

Alberto.

splittingresult.png (14.7 KiB)
minimum-contribution.png (18.6 KiB)
Comment

People who like this

0 Show 0
10 |2000000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
  • Viewable by all users
  • Viewable by moderators
  • Viewable by moderators and the original poster
  • Advanced visibility
Toggle Comment visibility. Current Visibility: Viewable by all users

Up to 10 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 50.0 MiB each and 250.0 MiB total.

1 Reply

  • Sort: 
  • Most voted
  • Newest
  • Oldest
avatar image

Answer by James K. · Aug 09, 2017 at 02:00 PM

Using any form of restriction on the number of splittings (which is necessary if you have a BT configuration that will result in a lot of splittings) is almost certain to include that aggregated <...> result as this is where PurePaths are grouped that do not match one of the other splits. To decrease the number of PurePaths that are grouped there though you can change the minimum contribution percentage to a smaller number (say 2%) so that fewer PurePaths are needed in a given set before a new splitting group is added to the results. Of course you should be careful with this as this will result in quite a but more splits (and thus measures) that need to be stored in the performance warehouse if you have the BT configured to store results there. To completely get rid of the aggregated <...> you would need to turn off any splitting restrictions but this would mean you would not want to store it in the performance warehouse (to avoid measure explosion) yet storage in the PW is necessary to create incidents off a measure/BT so this would not work for you.

James

Comment

People who like this

0 Show 0 · Share
10 |2000000 characters needed characters left characters exceeded
  • Viewable by all users
  • Viewable by moderators
  • Viewable by moderators and the original poster
  • Advanced visibility
Toggle Comment visibility. Current Visibility: Viewable by all users

Up to 10 attachments (including images) can be used with a maximum of 50.0 MiB each and 250.0 MiB total.

How to get started

First steps in the forum
Read Community User Guide
Best practices of using forum

NAM 2019 SP5 is available


Check the RHEL support added in the latest NAM service pack.

Learn more

LIVE WEBINAR

"Performance Clinic - Monitoring as a Self Service with Dynatrace"


JANUARY 15, 3:00 PM GMT / 10:00 AM ET

Register here

Follow this Question

Answers Answers and Comments

17 People are following this question.

avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image avatar image

Related Questions

Whenever the source page url is contains google.com then it should not be captured.How to write a regex for this?

Creating incident with splitting

create a measure based on the domain of a UA

Business Transactions Feed into c# with protobuf

Data missing - last 10 days data -percentile values available

Forum Tags

dotnet mobile monitoring load iis 6.5 kubernetes mainframe rest api dashboard framework 7.0 appmon 7 health monitoring adk log monitoring services auto-detection uem webserver test automation license web performance monitoring ios nam probe collector migration mq web services knowledge sharing reports window java hybris javascript appmon sensors good to know extensions search 6.3+ server documentation easytravel web dashboard kibana system profile purelytics docker splunk 6.1 process groups account 7.2 rest dynatrace saas spa guardian appmon administration production user actions postgresql upgrade oneagent measures security Dynatrace Managed transactionflow technologies diagnostics user session monitoring unique users continuous delivery sharing configuration alerting NGINX splitting business transaction client 6.3 installation database scheduler apache mobileapp RUM php dashlet azure purepath agent 7.1 appmonsaas messagebroker nodejs 6.2 android sensor performance warehouse
  • Forums
  • Public Forums
    • Community Connect
    • Dynatrace
      • Dynatrace Open Q&A
    • Application Monitoring & UEM
      • AppMon & UEM Open Q&A
    • Network Application Monitoring
      • NAM Open Q&A