Suggestions for improvements

jrweiss · Post by **jrweiss** » Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:41 am

Hi Alex,
HM is a good thing, well done. Some ideas for improvements:

a) Separate Service and GUI, so that one can admin HM from any console
b) Allow scripts (VBscript, etc.) do run in different user context than HM, since one wants to access info that are not available to the local system account
c) Allow logging of ALL settings and data into ODBC/OLE data source incl. test plans
d) Implement remote agents (also for UNIX)

Thanx.

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 12:49 am

>a) Separate Service and GUI, so that one can admin HM from any console
>d) Implement remote agents (also for UNIX)

It will be implemented in version 4.0

>b) Allow scripts (VBscript, etc.) do run in different user context than HM, since one wants to access info that are not available to the local system account

Remote agent started as service will allow to do that.

>c) Allow logging of ALL settings and data into ODBC/OLE data source incl. test plans

What do you mean: "logging of ALL settings"? Export test settings using ODBC data source (like current version can export into text file)?
We plan to implement utility that will be able to convert text import files into CVS or ODBC.

Thanks for ideas

Regards
Alex

jrweiss · Post by **jrweiss** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:34 am

Thanks for reply! Sorry for being unclear, what I mean with ALL settings is:

Test plans and data being received from the various tests straight into any SQL database via OLE/ODBC (instead of into txt, hml, dbf or html files). Would require from you to provide a script that generates the db and updates te db with statistics that you produce.

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 10:59 pm

Do have in mind new type of the report (ODBC report)? Like existing HTML/DBF/WML reports?

Regards
Alex

jrweiss · Post by **jrweiss** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 11:54 pm

Yes, exactly that's what I mean (at least for the reports), but in addition please allow also to log the test plans parameters into the db, such as Testname, etc.
I know I can pass the test plan values as macros, but in a relational context it would be better if, whatever you save in the HML file, to save in db tables.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:26 am

... but in a relational context it would be better if, whatever you save in the HML file, to save in db tables.

If you ask for a database as backend, you have my vote!

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:32 pm

Database instead of HML files? Its not so easy because each kind of tests has different set of properties.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:52 am

Database instead of HML files? Its not so easy because each kind of tests has different set of properties.

My database is limit by disk space only, and MSDE (which could be used for users without a full blown sql server) is limited to 2Gb. Sounds enough for normal use. It's more the design of the database which will limit the possibilities.

It will eventually give you a better way to manage and a more flexible system (data logging and settings can be seperated from the test engine). Easier (at least more open) reports and graphics (again optionally seperated from your testing machine). It wil even be possible to seperate the actions from the testing machine.

So perhaps not needed for the near future for most users, but when more and more systems are being monitored it's an easy way to seperate things and get a better overall performance for large monitoring configurations.

Besides the fact I trust sql more than a 'simple' file on disk......

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marcus on 2003-03-05 05:55 ]</font>

jrweiss · Post by **jrweiss** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 8:03 am

I agree completely. Had the same motivation when I posted it initially.

Regards, J.

jricha34 · Post by **jricha34** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:28 pm

Not to mention easier to script addition of new tests and new nodes and wouldn't need custom routines for exporting/importing, etc.

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:34 pm

Sounds very interesting. Really. But its good to implement in different application (or even set of applications). Some HostMonitor Enterprise version 5.0 with different modules like Monitor, Alert Generator, Report Generator, Log Analyzer, etc.
But current version of HostMonitor often used by small companies to monitor 10-20 servers, and its more easy and fast when everything depends on one exe module.
So, thank you for ideas but I am afraid it will not be implemented soon.

Regards
Alex

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:13 am

So, thank you for ideas but I am afraid it will not be implemented soon.

Soon in your case is immediatly for what we are used to by other software suppliers.

So in the future in your case will be......

But I realize it is not an 'easy' upgrade. But in the end all users could have provit of this new design, not just large monitoring configurations.

If I am right, version 4 is comming as a service with a mmc interface. Just consider it to be step 0 of the new design.

Keep up the good work and thanks for the new forum layout......

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 12:11 am

>So in the future in your case will be......

I think version 5.
In version 4 will be implemented different modules to make remote monitoring easier: Remote Agents, Remote Control Center, Web Interface...
About distributed monitoring we will think in version 5. Looks like I should create "to do" list for version 5 right now

>If I am right, version 4 is comming as a service with a mmc interface. Just consider it to be step 0 of the new design.

I think version 4 will be available in 2 packages:
1) single exe module with GUI that can be started as service or as application (exactly like version 3)
2) service (no GUI) + Remote Control Center to manage that service

>Keep up the good work and thanks for the new forum layout......

No problemo

Regards
Alex

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:56 am

>I think version 4 will be available in 2 packages

Is there a special reason for this?? It sounds more logic to keep just one version.

KS-Soft · Post by **KS-Soft** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:25 pm

Will you believe or not but some people running HostMonitor on Windows 95/98.

Regards
Alex