Send Netdot-users mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Netdot-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Asset table question (Carlos Vicente)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:41:10 -0500
From: Carlos Vicente <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Netdot-users] Asset table question
To: William Bulley <[email protected]>
Cc: Netdot-users <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Hi Web,
[CC?ing the users list for everyone?s benefit]
On Mar 4, 2014, at 1:27 PM, William Bulley <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Device table has an asset_id column for the foreign key of a row
> in the Asset table. However, this column can be NULL. I recall when
> you factored out of the Device table several columns when you created
> the Asset table. Can you give me a clue about the history/philospohy
> of the Asset table?
The idea was to de-couple the physical hardware from the logical network
device. One benefit is that it allows you to document hardware in storage (i.e.
not yet deployed). In addition, a physical device can potentially have more
than one virtual instance (virtual router, etc)
> If the asset_id column of the Device table can be
> NULL, then some Device rows are not "Asset"s. Was this intentional?
Yes. Some devices do not give enough information to produce an Asset record.
>
> I note in particular these facts:
>
> 1) the Device table has "history"
>
> 2) the Asset table lacks ?history"
Yes. History tables are going away (see below).
>
> 3) there is a comment in htdocs/generic/delete.html
>
> "This hardware will be moved to the available asset pool.
> If you inted to decommission the hardware remember to
> remove the asset as well."
>
> During deletion some "Device"s may not have "Asset"s.
And that?s fine. We should check the existence of an asset record before
printing that message.
> Does the Asset
> table take part in pruning? It seems not.
Correct. Determining if an asset is still in storage is something that Netdot
can?t do.
> Are the tables that do get
> pruned those table that grow rapidly? It seems so.
Yes.
>
> I'm a bit confused by the similarity/differences between the
> "Audit" table and the "*history" tables. Can you shed a bit
> of light in this area as well? Thanks in advance.
>
The idea of the history tables was to keep a copy of a record?s state every
time it changed. I never liked it really. Too cumbersome.
The audit table keeps a record of every change, so it?s equivalent, but
different, and it applies to any record.
Version 1.0.5 does away with history tables.
Best,
cv
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Netdot-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://osl.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/netdot-users
End of Netdot-users Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4
*******************************************
