2 Replies Latest reply on Sep 30, 2008 10:59 AM by rlord

    Adding new devices ( Question about Dependencies )

      Call me “new” however, every time I add a device to ipMonitor for example the devices sets a monitor for ping and a dependency for ping. It seems redundant to me to create an object with a monitor and set its self as dependence. Is this by design? Am I adding devices incorrectly? Should I be deleting the self dependency out of the object or leaving it there?
        • Re: Adding new devices ( Question about Dependencies )

          The reason for this dependency is that when this device fails, ipMonitor will limit alerts to the monitor defined as the dependency
          rather than triggering alerts for every member monitor.


          This is by design. The reasons are :


          1.) Minimizes the number of redundant alerts.


          2.) Helps isolate the root cause of the problem.


          3.) Prevents configured Recovery Alerts from attempting to restart services and
          applications if such an action is not required.

            • Re: Adding new devices ( Question about Dependencies )

              Thank you for the clarification.


              One last question, what is the correct way to set a dependency for a group of systems at a remote site?

              For example:
              State Group - City Group - Building Group - Floor Group - Systems on that floor.

              I have multiple systems and I would like the alarm to roll up to the ( State ) view if a system alarms. Is this automatically done by group association or do I need to setup dependencies all the way down? Also for the floor group how do i set the router / switch as a dependency for all the systems.

              My apologies if this seems like a no brainer ( and I do think I understand what to do ) however, I am setting this system up for the first time and I would like to get it right.