If anyone wants to make an enhancement request, the best thing to do is to email us. Just drop an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], outlining what you need, and how you would like to see it implemented. Then tech support (that's me) can put everything into the correct format, and pass it on the the developers. I encourage anyone who sees places where InterMapper could be improved to let us know. Of course, this list is also a fine place to raise such discussions, which I can also pass on formally after there's been some discussion.
In terms of your suggestion, I think that people here are currently pondering the best way to handle it. I would be happy to pass your suggestions on as another ER, as it may feed into their brainstorming. I think what you are planning now with map status probes is probably your best option. That is how we have some of our own internal maps set up.
Thanks,
Ian
On Sep 3, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Andrea Coppini wrote:
Where should these enhancement requests go?� I can't seem to find them on your website.
�
One notable feature I find lacking in InterMapper is grouping of multiple objects.
�
For example, most of our clients run servers with multiple services on them (eg. Exchange server comprising of IMAP, WWW, SMTP and POP server, plus an FTP site, plus several virtual web sites, plus a DNS server).� I would like to be able to define all these services as a group, which would allow, for example,�administrators to acknowledge all alerts in this group at once.
�
So far we plan to do this by using a map for each server, but having a group would be smarter (and save on the object count! :-))
�
�
�
�
<x-tad-bigger>----- Original Message -----</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>From:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>Ian Struckhoff</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>To:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger>InterMapper Discussion</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> </x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Sent:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Friday, September 03, 2004 9:29 PM</x-tad-bigger>
<x-tad-bigger>Subject:</x-tad-bigger><x-tad-bigger> Re: [IM-Talk] Acknowledgement with out using the main or Remote console?</x-tad-bigger>
Steve,
Thanks for these suggestions. Currently, it is not possible to acknowledge unless you are on Remote or the local client, and have edit priveleges. I believe we have had another request for acknowledging via the web, but I am passing on your comments as an enhancement request to the development queue. If you have more thoughts on the details of what you would like to see, please respond to the email you should be sent about it by our ticket system.
Thanks,
Ian
Tech Support
Dartware, LLC
On Aug 30, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Steven Good wrote:
This is either a question on how to do this, or a request for this to be a future feature (depends on the answer I guess)...
�
As we look to switch from OpenView to InterMapper, one of our main requirements was being able to acknowledge alarms.� The one problem we see, is that it appears you can only do this from either the console or remote.� Many of our staff that would need to acknowledge alarms, either would not need to manage the maps in any other way, or they may have the need to do this from home or some other location other than their office.
�
We would not be able to purchase and install the remote software at every possible site that these staff would work at, we would like to have the remotes only installed on the office machines.
�
So can alarms be acknowledged with out the need for the remote, if not via the web interface, then perhaps via a script that could be run from the Linux command line (we would be using the Linux server)?
�
If this is not possible today, would you consider this as a future feature.
�
Perhaps even a separate access write for the web interface, that allows for acknowledging alarms?
�
Thanks,
�
Steve
