NetXMS Forum

Testos: You're a genius! This only seems to happen with IE8. Tried with IE9 and Chrome, and it's fine! Awesome....

The fact that it's hierarchical is actually great, I think. If the box gets put into maintenance mode, all its children should also be in maintenance mode anyway (unless they were unmanaged to begin with - they should!) The issue with using managed/unmanaged as a maintenance mode is that it indeed changes the way you had things setup. On our switches, I only have a few things that need managed. 90% of the interfaces is set to unmanaged. I'd have to redo that setup every time. If you can, have a look at how "What's Up Gold" does maintenance mode. Is really basic, but it works surprisingly well. http://docs.ipswitch.com/WhatsUp_Gold_v12.3/WebHelp/13689.png

Yes, I want to create new object type "management board" for this type of situations. I'm also have a lot of servers with iLO boards Currently you can use the following method as a workaround: Create separate node object for management board Add server node object to "trusted nodes" list of management board node object Create DCI on server node object and specify management board node object as "proxy node" Then you will have DCIs on server node object, but they will be collected from management board. Best regards, Victor

Yikes! Yes, that complicates things a bit

Server is Win 2008R2, client is Win7 (32 bit).

Hi! Counter name must be enclosed in quotes, like this: PDH.CounterValue("\Web Service(Microsoft Dynamics CRM)\Total Method Requests") because counter name contains brackets, and without quotes agent cannot parse parameter correctly. Best regards, Victor

Currently the only option is to recreate nodes. I'll try to add possibility to move node into cluster in 1.0.6 release. Best regards, Victor

Answered part of my own question.  For switches the Index is what I use and it is template-able.  (I just need a 48 port and 24 port template) That makes it much easier, originally when I noticed the problem was on servers that I am monitoring with agents and they are VMs so the indexes seem off (and varies between one and many interfaces).

The current scheme is "for historical reasons". Now I have much better understanding of how it should work, but it's a major change in server's architecture. I completely agree that physical interfaces and IP addresses must be separate entities. I plan to make this change in 1.1.x branch (along with many other required changes). Best regards, Victor

Cool, thanks!