0 Replies Latest reply on Feb 27, 2017 7:52 AM by deverts

    VM vs Physical process improvement?




      Problem: Folks are adding servers to be monitored as if they are physical servers, and are not following the correct process for adding virtual servers. Don't go down the rant/soapbox conversation here as to why they aren't, they just aren't.


      Is there a way to "ensure/force" a virtual node to be monitored through the hypervisor? Or run a report to reconcile what is monitored and how, so we can go back and correct it? It would be awesome if there was a report that listed all the "grayed out" VMs and all the monitored nodes in alphabetical order, then I could look for duplicates. That would be the best method to reconcile. It would also be awesome if in later versions of NPM, when adding a node it tells us a duplicate hostname already exists, and gives us the option select the correct monitoring method.