NetXMS Forum

Fantastic. Also love what you guys have done with the download page (stable and development branch). Keep up the good work.

Cheers 

After upgrading netxms to the latest stable release, I was able to use the search feature as mentioned in this thread. I quickly located the problem, and it turns out netxms did exactly what it was supposed to. I blame myself for implementing a new naming standard on our servers.. Would still love to see more feedback to the user when this kind of problem occurs.

"can't add node A because of ip conflict with node B"

Tried restarting netxms, and still no luck. I am not able to add two critical servers that need monitoring because of this.

Thanks, I'll try that.

However, I am still hopeful for some more info in the GUI.

Netxms is a wonderful application, but I often end up in a few annoyances that could have been avoided with a bit more verbose message output.

Thanks Victor. This makes more sense. I'm running 1.2.27 in production, and will upgrade once M is a proper non-beta release.

Offering milestone/beta releases is a big thumbs up. It will provide us more peace of mind when we divide between production and testing the latest and greatest. Great work to you guys. It's highly appreciated.

@victor said in Pushing beta:

Actually it was not a good idea to hide 1.2.17 in archive. We will change download page to offer both versions. As for M releases - it may be quite stable (as 2.0-M2 for example) or may not. Main reason why we use M releases now is significant amount of internal changes (mostly targeted at IPv6 support).

Best regards,
Victor

The M releases doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. If they are more stable than the 1.2.27 release then why were they called M in the first place? It's beta milestones or have I completely misunderstood something? The debs are even under notation beta:

Page not found — NetXMS

The page you were looking for does not exist.

NetXMS (www.netxms.org)

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the tip but my feature request still stands. I was not able to locate the duplicate object, and didn't get any hits on a simple ">x.x.x.*" search. I suspect a bug, as I am 99% sure that the ip is not in use in any of the current objects visible. It might have been used previously on some depricated host.

Next step is to search the database I guess.

From time to time, I find myself trying to locate "objects that already exists". This is becoming time consuming. When adding the host, the error message only displays that the object already exists but shows no additional information. So I am lost as to exactly why the error is displayed.

This happened just now when I tried to register a "foobar.domain.com" and I get the error message. I know for a fact that "foobar" was never registered in netxms before (new naming standard) but perhaps the IP was used on an old object that was removed. I tried registering "foobar" with both dns and ip - same result every time.

It would be a major improvement if the error message could show some additional details about the duplicate object.

Hi

This is not really general support, so please forgive me as I didn't find a better place to put this.

I find it puzzling that the beta is being pushed as the latest download, and latest stable (1.2.17 ?) is found in the archive.

The number one priority for me as a user of netxms is a reliable and robust alerting system. Ofcourse I want to contribute on testing the latest code, but not in production. So I am a bit confused as to why the 2.0 branch is promoted on the download page, and 1.2.17 is "hidden".

I would like to see the download page split into "stable" and "milestone/testing". It would be a step in the right direction.

Superb. Thanks Marco! 

I'm having a problem with the android client. I've setup a few custom graphs, which have colors set to "auto". This works very well with the desktop nxmc client, however with the android client all lines are white against a black background.

This makes the data impossible to differ, and I have to make a best guess on which is what.

A work-around is to manually set the colors on the desktop client which is then reflected in the android client - but that quickly becomes a hazzle with multiple graphs.

Some progress being made.

I removed the trigger that I converted to template, applied to the hosts and restarted the netxms server. Suddenly alarms work again.

I believe I have hit some sort of bug but unsure what exactly. I'll try to recreate the problem.

Hi Victor, thanks for your quick reply.

It seems the problem is more severe than I thought. Thresholds are not showing alarms period. It's worked perfectly with other triggers before today.

What I did was these exact steps;

1. Create a trigger on a host with a threshold.
2. Convert the trigger to a template item.

After that, alarms are not rendered. Emails are not sent either. I've checked the event policy and they are exactly like they were. Seems like something is broken after the two steps I performed, and I have no clue on what it is. I've created several triggers like this before, but never converted to template.

Discovered something weird today. I configured a threshold alarm, which should trigger an alarm if a given string is not correct after 3 attempts.

See the picture attachment. The condition is triggered, but no alarm on the host is activated.

Is there a logical reason why it fails? I have other similar thresholds, but they are integer and float. So my theory is that it has something to do with the check being a string.

openldap/ldap already done, as being present in the current release?

ah, thanks marco!

Thanks for the reply.

Seems it doesn't work that way for me. See the attached photos. Perhaps I've configured the checks incorrectly? What's confusing is that graphs rendered on the mobile client show up correctly.

I've noticed in the last couple of releases that the check I have for disk space percentage shows up as "0". However, If I generate graphs the real values are plotted correctly. Is it just me or is it occurring for others as well?

Yes, you're correct. Sorry about the confusion. Looking forward to your new release. Cheers.