All questions related to installations, configurations and maintenance of Advanced Host Monitor (including additional tools such as RMA for Windows, RMA Manager, Web Servie, RCC).
I have a simple half-a-dozen or so URL tests, but I need to re-enter the same half-a-dozen URL tests repeatedly, dozens and dozens of times, with a simple change for a different IP address/domain when adding new servers. Is there a way to enter the half-a-dozen URL tests one time and use variables/macros and just change the IP address/domain in those existing half-a-dozen URL tests, rather then having hundreds of the same URL tests out there, where the only difference is the IP address/domain? It gets very messy to view and manage.
I have read the documentation and searched this site, but haven’t seen a way to do this.
Replicator is a handy tool, but in an effort to simplify my original explination of the issue at hand, I may have over simplified it.
I now see that there are three places in the export file where the information might need to be updated/changed. Not just the one IP address, as I originally stated (sorry!).
In the export, the 3 locations where data might need to be updated/changed are the "Title", "Comment", and "URL". Using Replicator I am able to simply change the IP address as I originally requested (or any 1 of the 3 locations individually), but how would I get more then 1 locations to update/change? Say, the "Title" and "URL". Or all 3?
Hence my original inquery regarding variables/macros.
Replicator may change many parameters (with the same value) but it cannot change many values at once.
E.g.
If target URL looks like http://195.168.10.11/index/searchcgi?index=5", test name looks like "Check server 195.168.10.11" and comment looks like "test web to database connection on 195.168.10.11" then Replicator may create list of tests changing IP address (195.168.10.11) in these 3 fields for each new test item.
If target URL, test name and comment contains some random (not related) names then how it can be changed automatically?
We would like to avoid making duplicate tests, but instead the server would be added and would use the existing tests. That would mean that the existing tests would probably need to use a variable/macro that would allow each server's info to be passed into it.
In the end we would still only have the same number of tests, but we could continue to add new servers that would use those existing tests.
Is there a way to do this. If not, is this something that could be added?
That would mean that the existing tests would probably need to use a variable/macro that would allow each server's info to be passed into it.
Then you should wait for version 7.70
In the end we would still only have the same number of tests, but we could continue to add new servers that would use those existing tests.
Then you should forget about HostMonitor and use some completely different software. 1 test item cannot monitor various servers. If single test could monitor 10 servers and 5 of these servers fail, how you would know which servers failed?
Alex,
You failed to note the incredible power and flexibility of your own product:
(wlajoie stated)
In the end we would still only have the same number of tests, but we could continue to add new servers that would use those existing tests.
(You replied)
Then you should forget about HostMonitor and use some completely different software. 1 test item cannot monitor various servers. If single test could monitor 10 servers and 5 of these servers fail, how you would know which servers failed?
The fact is that you can write a script that tests multiple servers and returns a single reply based on the collective result. I've done it myself.
You do correctly alert wlajoie regarding the risk/limitation of such an aggregate test. There are a few additional considerations when you use an aggregate test:
In the case of a massive failure this could result in a very long, convoluted reply, but as long as this is acceptable to wlajoie HM is capable of presenting those results.
You potentially limit yourself with regard to reporting the individual results.
Troubleshooting and automating responses based on an aggregate test is more difficult.
Having said that, it appears that he is interested in testing the same URL's on multiple servers. An appropriately written script could reply "ServerName:URL" for the failed server/url, appending multiple failures into the reply as necessary. If that sufficiently addreses his current need, I say, "Go for it!"
H'm... If somebody needs network monitoring software based on "device granularity" idea, I think its better to find such software instead of purchasing software based on "check granularity" concept and spending a lot of time to redisign everything (plus not everything can be redesigned).
Probably sometimes you want to combine both concepts We will think about this before version 9 development.
If somebody needs network monitoring software based on "device granularity" idea, I think its better to find such software instead of purchasing software based on "check granularity" concept and spending a lot of time to redisign everything (plus not everything can be redesigned).