Stand up and request features !!!

To the Ipswitch web site

Ipswitch Forums
Home      Members   Calendar   Who's On
Welcome Guest ( Login | Register )
      


12345»»»

Stand up and request features !!!Expand / Collapse
Out of these 7 features, please choose the 4 you most want implemented
Poll ResultsVotes
Intra-device dependencies
 
18.04%
112
Multiple-device dependencies
 
13.37%
83
Merging performance monitors with active monitors
 
13.53%
84
Web alarms : choice between the old (2006) and the new (V11) behaviour
 
5.48%
34
Device states : Normal / Warning / Critical instead of Up / Down
 
21.74%
135
Ability to control how individual device state is reflected in group state
 
11.11%
69
Ability to configure specific monitors so that they don't trigger device-level actions
 
16.75%
104
Member Votes: 187, Anonymous Votes: 0. You don't have permission to vote within this poll.
Author
Message
Posted 3/13/2008 10:32:49 AM


Time Traveler

Time TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime Traveler

Group: WhatsUp Gold Expert
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:31:39 PM
Posts: 1,436, Visits: 3,919
All forum users,
Tired of requesting features to Ipswitch and not seeing them implemented, we decided with some forum buddies to build a list of much wanted features for What's Up. So, we kindly invite you to vote and choose 4 features you really would like to have. Our idea is that if we collect enough votes, we might put some pressure to have them included in future development plans ! Here are some explanations in case the features are not self-describing :

Intra-device dependencies: Say you have "ping" and "smtp" and "raid-5 status" monitors on a device. If "ping" goes down and you defined action policies on individual monitors, you will receive THREE alarms. That's TWO unnecessary alarms. Intra-device dependencies would allow to define that if a specific monitor goes down, the device is really down, therefore no alarms should be sent for other monitors.

Multiple-device dependencies: Say that you have a redundant setup, for instance a spanning-tree topology. Ability to make a device up dependent on more than one device would allow for more accurate dependencies.

Web alarms: Many people don't like the new web alarms (popup that needs to be dismissed) -not very friendly for a NOC display. Others do like the popup. Being able to choose is the best way to go !

Device states: three states would give more granularity. This could be implemented for instance by associating a severity level to an active monitor (critical or not).

Control how individual device state is reflected in group state: Currently, as soon as ONE device in a group is down, the group becomes red. But in a given group, you might have more important and less important devices. As a quick visual clue of your network health, being able to define how an individual device will impact the group status would be nice.

Ability to configure specific monitors so that they don't trigger device-level actions: In some situations, alerting can be fine-tuned by using both device-global actions and active monitor-specific actions. But currently this means receiving double alarms.

Reading, writing and arithmetic - If you need to choose, please take option 1.

Post #41849
Posted 3/13/2008 12:28:36 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/26/2008 12:16:29 PM
Posts: 1, Visits: 24
There are a few things I would love to see:

(Some are picky, I know)

1.  I want Dynamic Groups to display status of members like regular groups can.  I realize that Dynamic Groups are only queries, but an internal mechanism could update them to reflect member status.

2.  Better NOC display features!  Just give me more options.  (And a web-page rotator is not the answer.)  The Device Group Mini Status is probably the best module to display on a screen but I can barely customize it.  Its either huge or tiny.

3.  Let me set Action Policies for Groups/Dynamic Groups that are actively applied to group memebers.  The Bulk Change option works OK, but an active policy would be awesome.  Also, let me have an Action Policy applied to a device and still be allowed to add a device level action in addition to that policy.

4.  Better control over the display of Custom Performance Monitors in the web view.  For example, if I have 4 WMI monitors on one device, they all have to be displayed with the same chart type, scale, date range, etc.  It would be nice to be able to select the custom monitors you want to display in that web content, instead of showing all of them at once.  Also, give us WMI guys some nice built-in performance reports like SNMP has.

5.  A shortcut to go directly to the Device Status page.  In the web interface I can go to home, to another device, or edit the device properties, but I cannot go back to the device status (while viewing reports, mainly).

6.  More granular control over blackout times (for alerts) and the ability to schedule non-recurring maintenance times.  Better yet, give me the option to change Action Policies during certain time periods!  (Daytime support vs On-call support)

 

Probably could come up with more but I hate being so negative.  I really do love WUG!

Post #41854
Posted 3/13/2008 1:45:07 PM
Time Traveler

Time TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime Traveler

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/6/2008 10:25:48 AM
Posts: 534, Visits: 1,880
A voté.

@xrikrazen
They are several really interesting suggestions, I especially like the one which would allow both a policy and device-level actions.
Post #41859
Posted 3/14/2008 6:27:56 AM


Time Traveler

Time TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime Traveler

Group: WhatsUp Gold Expert
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:31:39 PM
Posts: 1,436, Visits: 3,919
I can't make it a sticky, but I can bump

...And bump...

Reading, writing and arithmetic - If you need to choose, please take option 1.

Post #41889
Posted 3/14/2008 2:18:21 PM
Junior Member

Junior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 2:36:40 PM
Posts: 14, Visits: 278
I would like to see a one-shot maintenance mode. That is the ability to place a device in maintenance mode immediately for a user defined amount of time simply by right-clicking on the device or group and choosing an option like "put in maintenance for 15 minutes". Another option would pop-up a box that asks you to enter a period of time in hours and minutes. Once the time period expires the device comes out of maintenance.

I have used the scheduled maintenance feature and also like the ability to use the bulk change functionality to place groups of devices in maintenance. An easy one-shot maintenance would be save quite a few clicks and since the device comes out of maintenance by itself after a period of time if prevents those "Oops, I forgot" problems if you forget to take a device out of maintenance manually.


-----
Pb
Post #41915
Posted 3/18/2008 4:56:21 PM
Junior Member

Junior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/2/2008 6:16:34 PM
Posts: 11, Visits: 9
I would like to see out of the box threshold alerting.

Example 1, ping latency for the last 5 minutes has reached an unacceptable level. Notify me.
Example 2, Bandwidth on interface has exceeded threshold for the last 10 minutes. Notify me.

Maybe just more jscript and vbscript templates with adjustable thresholds over adjustable time frames.
Post #42026
Posted 3/18/2008 6:38:54 PM
Junior Member

Junior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior MemberJunior Member

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/2/2008 6:16:34 PM
Posts: 11, Visits: 9
Add Export to PDF for reports, not just Excel or CSV
Post #42028
Posted 3/19/2008 5:34:01 AM
Time Traveler

Time TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime TravelerTime Traveler

Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/6/2008 10:25:48 AM
Posts: 534, Visits: 1,880
IMHO, It's better to request feature that can't be attained through any means at the moment.
As both of the last 2 posters said it, you can emulate the feature they're requesting using scripting (sure advanced scripting, but still).
So, I'm not sure such features are go