[1.3.5] autoregistration vs. autodiscovery
Hi,
if I understand both concepts correctly, then these are completely
different approaches to get - more or less - the same result
(monitoring all servers and network devices, even with minimal
checks).
Autoregistration adds a server as soon as an gent is installed
and a connection is established to the server. This is a passive type
"discovery" mechanism.
Autodiscovery, OTOH, is actively scanning networks for
newly installed servers and agents.
This creates a load on the server.
OK; the autoregistration feature did not work in the last beta (1.3.4 and PostgreSQL) and we want a little more than just selecting
a template based on the hostname but, e.g. based on the output
of "uname -a".
I think, in a real world, both are necessary.
So I am not happy about the release notes for 1.3.5 saying:
"removed support of autoregistration, use autodiscovery instead"
What do other people think ?
Waiting for opinions,
Norbert.
if I understand both concepts correctly, then these are completely
different approaches to get - more or less - the same result
(monitoring all servers and network devices, even with minimal
checks).
Autoregistration adds a server as soon as an gent is installed
and a connection is established to the server. This is a passive type
"discovery" mechanism.
Autodiscovery, OTOH, is actively scanning networks for
newly installed servers and agents.
This creates a load on the server.
OK; the autoregistration feature did not work in the last beta (1.3.4 and PostgreSQL) and we want a little more than just selecting
a template based on the hostname but, e.g. based on the output
of "uname -a".
I think, in a real world, both are necessary.
So I am not happy about the release notes for 1.3.5 saying:
"removed support of autoregistration, use autodiscovery instead"
What do other people think ?
Waiting for opinions,
Norbert.
Comment