1 Reply Latest reply on May 22, 2012 6:28 AM by michal.hrncirik

    IPAM as standalone Pros and Cons




      We  have an Orion IPAM instance that is running as a module on our Orion NPM server, along with SEUM, UDT, SAM, NTA and the IPSLA Manager. We have received quite a bit of complaints about the Orion site being too slow.  Our users also complain about frequent downtime, which happens every time we upgrade or during troubleshooting NPM or any of the modules on it .  So, we are consdering the option of moving IPAM to a standalone VM server instance.  However, before we attempt this, we would like to truly understand all the pros and cons for this potential IPAM move.  We already know that we would have to use the Import feature, which is not ideal, since we have to import subnets on an individual basis.  That won't be much fun at all, and would prefer to see the IPAM developers offer a fool-proof way to import and export ALL of the IPAM data. 


      Anyway, back to the original issue at hand. I searched the SolarWinds website and also the Thwack forum.  However, I could not find any specific postings listing pros and cons for running IPAM as standalone vs. as a module.  So, I would like to know... 


      1. Besides the issue of having to import individual subnets, and having to support a separate server and DB.., what are the drawbacks for running IPAM as standalone? 
      2. Besides a faster application performance and smaller database, what are the benefits of running IPAM on standalone?
      3. Also, about running IPAM as a module?  What are the pros and cons for this?


      Thanks in advance!!!

        • Re: IPAM as standalone Pros and Cons



          thanks for sharing your problem. First of all, let me recap your issue: you would like to move IPAM to separate server because your users are complaining about Orion server availability correct?

          There is no global answer to your question if it will be better to run IPAM as a standalone or as a module. But let explain what could be benefits of these two options.


          Btw, IPAM 3.0 has been released recently (http://thwack.solarwinds.com/message/170783#170783) I'd recommend to do an upgrade to get rid of bugs or performance problems".


          Now, running IPAM as a module together with NPM or UDT on the same server will give you the benefit of having shared database for nodes, alerts, etc. which makes your configurations global, faster and easier to maintain. Also you can set user permissions globally for all product you are currently using. Biggest benefit is correlation of information coming from NPM, UDT, Netflow and IPAM via single webconsole.


          Having IPAM as a standalone installation on a separate server has an advantage in dedicated database and web server (no impact of other modules and you will also probably won't have so big web load -> better web response time).


          It's matter of choice, there is no global rule saying when you should apply which kind of installation.

          We do believe that having everything on a single server is always better than distributed installations. Mainly from set-up, maintenance and data availability perspective. We also offer the "Additional Web Server" package which can help you in case of low IIS performance or the "Additional Poller package" that can help you with polling performance.


          I'd keep it on single box with the rest of the products because that will help you keep all the information (networking, IPAM, application) together and I'd probably try to figure out what is the root cause of user's complains and if there is a possibility to eliminate that.


          please let us know if you have more questions.