Forum Discussion

Eric_Singer's avatar
9 years ago

Better collection process

I realize this may be asking for a complete re-architecture, but I find the process of the active discovery / multi-instance collection to be highly inefficient, at least when it comes to scripting.  We use a TON of Powershell monitors and with a relatively large environment like ours (700 servers) the way you fire off an individual collection per instances crushes our collectors.  From my view it just seems unnecessary.  Why fire off an individual collection per instance if all instances can be grabbed in a single script execution.  Why not have LM scrape the output for not only the value but the instances name?  At the end of the day the collector sill needs to deal with the same number of datapoints, but at least if we're not launching PS a 100 times per server per minute it saves a considerable amount of CPU, and may ultimately lead to being able to host more devices on a single collector.  

5 Replies

Replies have been turned off for this discussion
  • On 3/9/2016 at 0:21 PM, Sarah Terry said:

    We actually have a new BatchScript collection method for exactly this purpose - you can find documentation on it here:  


    Great, so does that support powershell directly or no?  Meaning would I need to write a batch script that would execute a powershell script, or can I tell this collection to run powershell script native?  

    Additionally, it would be helpful if whoever wrote that wiki also included an example of the script they used for AD/Collection so that we can understand if parameters were needed and what not.  The original powershell "how to" was great because it included scripting examples.  

  • Yes -- the new batchscript functionality works both with embedded Groovy and PowerShell scripts.

    Great suggestion -- we'll update the documentation to include example scripts.

  • The batchscript functionality is a huge improvement and innvotation. 

  • My only additional comment would be that I find the name a bit misleading given that windows CMD scripts are almost always referred to as "batch scripts".  Perhaps a name like "Parallel Instance Script" or something like that would be better.  Then again I could see how that might confuse someone (normal scripts method launch multiple scripts in parallel).