This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UDT's Massive Hidden Cost??

If I see this right, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, UDT forces you to monitor your switch ports in NPM thereby greatly raising your element count meaning you may have to jump license levels (and remember some modules like netflow force you to have the same licensing level as NPM) and you need more server resources which also means more Poller licenses.

So if you are like me and you do not monitor access ports your element count will go through the roof as you must do this for UDT to be effective.  

Again please someone correct me if I am wrong here..

So this would seem to mean the ROI for the module falls through the floor and the initial investment for the license seems absolutely silly.

If this is all correct then my personal feelings are it should cost very little or be a part of Orion to start with.

  • Donald,

    I'm happy to say you are wrong :-)

    There was another thread about that, here is the relevant bit:

    UDT is licensed by number of UDT ports. This has no impact on your NPM element count. For example, if you are monitoring 2 interfaces on a switch in NPM, then you monitor all of the ports in UDT, your NPM element count will still be 3 (two interfaces and a node). This is the reason we use the language of ports versus interfaces. In general, these are the same physical (or virtual) thing. A port is a UDT licensed element and we collect connection information from it. A interface counts against your NPM license and is used to collect utilization, traffic and error data.


  • OK awesome, this makes me very happy to be wrong.

    I am seriously digging UDT and I have multiple departments whom are interested and I was starting to wonder if we would even be able to deploy it because of what I mentioned.

    But again thanks for clearing that up, now I just have to find some money somewhere  :P