We could absolutely use this capability. I took the survey and provided as much feedback as possible. For this to work for us we would need it to support both NPM and SAM. Also I would like to see a limited number of ports needed to communicate back to the master. Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in more feedback and thanks for looking into this!
That would be awesome. We could use that for our MSP side of the business, and to help data collection in another dispersed network. Way to go
I like this idea.
We currently have 10 Campus Networks with each separated into about 10 - 20 sites. There is another bunch of smaller remote sites also.
I work for a mining company and a lot of our systems is separated with Private VLAN's from the Enterprise network to protect systems that could cause potential harm to people and production loss to the company.
This however makes it very difficult to monitor without fancy IPSEC tunnels etc which we do not want to do anyways, we had a look at APE's but deploying 100x APE does not make financial sense if you do not monitor 10 000 elements per instance. If a remote smaller server could be deployed that caters for 100-500 elements it would be great as the remote server could be connected to the Private VLAN's for monitoring purposes. This would also assist greatly with more accurate availability statistics.
I think solarwinds need to work on
1.cheaper (linux?) poller (mini sl100?) for those who has a lot of site without away manage them in the same magnet net.
2.carrier grade poller "SLX-C" to big boys that will love consolidated 3-4 poller in 1 "SLX-C" poller.
3."old custemers" the should have the right to reaplace the poller or NOT.
Survey completed. Some additional notes.
1. I'm loving the idea of a "mini-poller" for a small remote office that has less than 10 devices (a couple of routers, a firewall and a switch perhaps?).
2. I think the element count should depend on the "main" license purchased. IE if I have an SL2000, that's for 2000 elements, which can be deployed against any number of additional pollers, so 1 poller of 2000, or 2 pollers of 1000 each, or 4 pollers of 500 each, or a combination of those.
Feel free to get in touch for a more detailed discussion.
stuartwhyte I agree that one of my main concerns is that too small of a poller won't cover enough. One idea would be to run with the 100 element idea but let people stack it so if you need 250 elements you could just get 3 of the 100 element pollers and stack them.
At a previous site, we placed an additional poller in the DMZ. That way, we only had to open the firewall for the monitoring traffic to/from the poller instead of opening more ports to all/each of the nodes in the DMZ.
Apart from the scaleability issue I am making use of additonal pollers to support VRFs -- this allows me to have a node with the same IP address and a different community string on a different polling engine. This allows UDT to collect the ARP tables from the most commonly used VRFs.
This is totally a hack because of lack of VRF support in UDT.