Forgive me if I'm wrong, I did not read everything line by line in this thread but seems like the whole discussion can be concluded by requesting and optional inheritance of notifiers and delayes by member probes from the group probe. I'd imagine, to satisfy everyone, the inheritance should be on by default for every member and should have an ability to be disabled on per member basis.
I'd take Windows security permissions model as an example of what, I think, would be best solution: 1. Create server wide notifier setting and by default they would propagate all the way down to member probes. 2. Allow keeping of the inheritance on maps, group probes and member probes but also allow addition of additional (I know) probes where desired. 3. Allow disabling the inheritance on any level (map, group, memebers) and setting of custom notifiers for that level with further propagation of the notifiers set on this particular level. Who agrees? __________________________________________________________ Andrey Gordon | Integrity Interactive | Network Engineer | +1.781.398.3518 > From: Tony Mumm <[email protected]> > Reply-To: InterMapper Discussion <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:00:02 -0500 > To: 'InterMapper Discussion' <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [IM-Talk] InterMapper 5.1b5 (3 RFEs) > > Thanks for setting me straight. I had forgotten that the group and the > members have independent notification settings. We had a member probe with > a delay that was kicking off the group probe that didn't have a delay. It > makes me wonder if it makes sense for the group probe to honor the > notification delay that was applied to each of the individual member probes. > > > At least for now I went ahead and removed notifications altogether for the > group probe and left all the notifications to the members. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher L. > Sweeney > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:54 PM > To: InterMapper Discussion > Subject: RE: [IM-Talk] InterMapper 5.1b5 (3 RFEs) > > At 12:45 PM -0500 4/9/09, Tony Mumm wrote: >> I think I track with what you are saying. I at least added the probe type >> to the notifier string so that we can discern between a dead box and a dead >> BGP peer. Now which BGP peer went down exactly is another story - but at >> least the sky isn't falling when we see a simple "device: down" message. > I >> don't see yet how you can bring out the label of the member device/probe. > > The label of the member device/probe will automatically be a part of > the condition field, but I think it makes sense to allow it as a > separate field in the notifier, too. There are several suggestions > and enhancement requests regarding the labels of the member probes > that I'm going to synthesize and try to improve the usefulness of > that aspect of the probe groups. > > Thanks for all the feedback. > > -- Christopher > > -- > ================================================ > Christopher L. Sweeney > Dartware, LLC > http://www.dartware.com/ > ____________________________________________________________________ > List archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ > To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected] > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > List archives: > http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ > To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected] > ____________________________________________________________________ List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/ To unsubscribe: send email to: [email protected]
