Community
- Command Central
- MVP Program
- Monthly Mission
- Blogs
- Groups
- Events
- Media Vault
Products
- Observability
- Network Management
- Application Management
- IT Security
- IT Service Management
- System Management
- Database Management
Content Exchange
- SolarWinds Platform
- Server & Application Monitor
- Database Performance Analyzer
- Server Configuration Monitor
- Network Performance Monitor
- Network Configuration Manager
- SQL Sentry
- Web Help Desk
Free Tools & Trials
Store

Dependencies Clarification

I'm trying to find some clarity on how dependencies should be set up.

We have a few different scenarios where we think a child should have multiple parents. The documentation mention to put multiple parents in a group I'm not clear how that works. If one parent in the group goes down will the child alerts still be suppressed and we'll just get the alert on that parent? Or does the group as a whole since its the parent need to go down?

We turned on auto dependencies and it found the node - node dependencies but we have interfaces where multiple routers aggregate back to that we'd like to a more granular dependency on. I've created a group for the routers that aggregate back to that interface. If there are already node to node dependencies and and I also create an interface to group with the same edge routers will the edge routers alert be suppressed if the core node AND interface goes down? Or is it a core node OR interface behavior? Also for clarity the interface is an interface on that same core node. Or do I need to create a group for the node and interface and use that as the parent?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

borgan

If you designate a Group as a parent, then it is the status of the Group that determines when the Child is reachable or not. For example, if you create a group that contains 2 tandem routers as the gate way to a remote site, then that child site is accessible as long as one of the routers in the parent group is up. So, you would want to set the roll up status for the parent group to be "show best" so that the parent only shows as down when BOTH routers are down. Make sense?

jajao555

Yea that helps. So creating a group for the interface and node and then setting it to show worst would achieve the goal. If either the node or interface goes down the child nodes would be suppressed and only the interface or node would actually show down correct?

borgan

I don;t think you would want to create a parent group that contains both the node and the interface that actually connects to the child router group. Since it is actually the interface that connects to the aggregate child group of routers, then make the single interface the parent of the child group. Forget the node that the interface is on. Another way to look at it is to ask yourself what happens to Orion's ability to ping B if A goes down?