Archived community.zenoss.org | full text search
Skip navigation
34563 Views 4 Replies Latest reply: Sep 14, 2010 5:12 AM by chitambira RSS
fdcsantos Newbie 5 posts since
Oct 21, 2009
Currently Being Moderated

Dec 17, 2009 2:44 PM

Group interfaces instead of devices

Hi there,


I'm exploring Zenoss to my needs and I'd like to know if there is a way to create groups of ports/interfaces in zenoss instead of devices, which I think is a better way to represent an application monitoring availability. For example, I have a huge device that connects several servers, each of one for a specific purpose. Considering that a port is down, it could or not belongs to a server which supports an application. Can you help me with this issue?



Thanks in advance.


Flávia
  • Andrea Consadori ZenossMaster 863 posts since
    Feb 11, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Dec 23, 2009 3:34 PM (in response to fdcsantos)
    Re: Group interfaces instead of devices

    sorry but i don't understand why it's a problem for you how zenoss work,


    actually in zenoss you can give device dependency (at l3 via cli)

  • mlist Rank: White Belt 49 posts since
    Mar 27, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Dec 24, 2009 6:43 AM (in response to Andrea Consadori)
    Re: Group interfaces instead of devices

    This is a complex and interesting item already discussed in lot of posts. If you search in the forum for "layer3 dependencies" will find lot of informations. In my opinion one of the best post (in which I have discussed) is thread/12061?start=0&tstart=0

    Basically zenoss manage layer3 dependencies automatically if it is able to read and learn routing tables of all of the devices involved in the communications. When not possible, you can write python code (as suggested by Consadori) although I think that this is not always good in fact I opened a "future request" (I'm enterprise customer) about the ability to manually create dependencies in "nagios style" that, in this case, is absolutely better than zenoss.

    Unfortunately if you speak about the "port of the switch", you speak about "layer2 topology" and, in this case, zenoss doesn't handle layer2. Anyway I think that using layer3 with manual dependencies you should be able to reach your goal (at least partially). You won't say: if port3 of the switch is down then...but you should be able to say(at least) : if swith goes down...then suppress events for those servers attached to this switch.

     

    I hope to have clarified your doubt.

     

    bye

    Marco

  • chitambira Rank: Brown Belt 711 posts since
    Oct 15, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Sep 14, 2010 5:12 AM (in response to fdcsantos)
    Re: Group interfaces instead of devices

    I believe the concept of 'systems' in zenoss was primarily created with the view to move on to  such a feature where components and/or devices can be mixed up together to form a particular system (or service)

    For exaple, consider a service call AAA (authentication, access and authorisation)

    in this container you would need to have for eg:

    - the ldap servers

    - load balancers (if loadbalasing used)

    - the ldap processes

    - the switch interfaces connected to these servers

    - the mysqld process on the mysql server witch servers these (if mysql is used)

    - the storage switch interface to which these get their storage

     

    If any of these fail, then the service AAA will be deemed to be 'unavailable'

    Note that some other ports on the switches may fail, but shld not raise the attention of the 'directory services consultant'

    This is really a feature which can greatly improve service management.

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Legend

  • Correct Answers - 4 points
  • Helpful Answers - 2 points