Jordan-Eil
Joined 2 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
Contributions
Re: Is anyone else getting issues creating Bandwidth Reports on Switches?
Thanks! I was able to run the report successfully with graphs for Top 10 interfaces on one of our core switches. How do you get more than 10 interfaces with the “Top 10 Only: Selected”? Without it selected we get too much - with it selected we normally get what you got here, a normal output. Currently, we are not. I guess we’ll have to follow-up with support and see what’s going on. Out of curiosity, how many interfaces are on your core switch that LM has instances for?1View0likes0CommentsRe: Is anyone else getting issues creating Bandwidth Reports on Switches?
Oh Sorry about that. Could you send a sample of how you have the report setup? I can mirror it and give it a shot. Currently set as such: Report Type: Bandwidth Format: PDF Report Access: High Flexibility Time Range: Last Calendar Day Resources: *Switch to analyze* Datasource: Network Interfaces (SNMP_Network_Interfaces ) Instance: * Description: * Top 10 Only: Selected Scale by Units of 1024: Selected Report Format: Graph per Interface FYI: this works if there are 10 or less interfaces, more than 10 causes the error.3Views0likes0CommentsRe: Is anyone else getting issues creating Bandwidth Reports on Switches?
Hi @Jordan-Eil , I just ran this report in our environment and used a device group that had about 8 switches and it pulled every single interface for all switches in the group and reported it in the csv export. Sorry not sure why you’re getting that error because Ihaven’t experienced it but I at least verified this is most likely not a wide spread issue with LM/Envision. CSV reports work fine, it’s when we attempt to display a graph - using either .html or .pdf - CSV isn’t a problem but also isn’t helpful to outside agents.4Views0likes0CommentsIs anyone else getting issues creating Bandwidth Reports on Switches?
Currently attempting to generate a Bandwidth Report with more than 10 interfaces causes an error, where previously it would just create a report and provide the “Top 10” interfaces. I am curious if anyone else is having the trouble. Also, Netflow reports generate the same error, logs indicate an inability to create more than 20 graphs. This error is odd, as just a few days ago we had a report run with over 30 graphs without issue. Curious if anyone else has run into this issue.Solved124Views2likes8CommentsRe: Manual topology mapping
Were there other issues you were referring to that were introduced in 187? Specifically, it seems when trying to export a saved Topology Map to a dashboard for reporting, the saved map is basically not reflective of what the dashboard appears under. Add to the existing issues in 1.86 where moving items in the map is now basically impossible. Dynamic maps, even custom-made ones, just reset mere moments after the devices are moved, and reset whenever any property of any single device is changed. For example, selecting “network” devices on an edge device, say a Floor Switch in HQ which is attached to the main switch to show itsconnected devices, will reset the entire map to a default, or randomized, dynamic map. Essentially iteither takes the way that LM displays the Topology in one of itsdefault settings or nothing. This wasn’t the case before, as we were once able to edit the placement of devices under Hierarchal modes and dynamic modes alike in order to better represent the network topology. After 1.85 Hierarchal maps are no longer editable, and from that point forward we’ve been unable to build a legible topology map of our core network.19Views1like0CommentsRe: Manual topology mapping
As it stands now, you'd be able to drag and drop one node onto another. This would bring up a dialog that would let you input the edge type, direction, and in some cases allow you to search for an instance on the dragged device. But big picture, the goal is to allow you to create edges without having to write code, or even leave the mapping canvas. I wanted to give this a bump here: This isn’t functioning if it is supposed to be in place. at best, the “Manual Mapping” option lets youattemptto create a line between two objects, but when you do make this attempt a prompt appears stating: “Both Source and Target should have External Resource ID (ERI) defined.” or, when both have an ERI defined: “The selected source node doesn't have valid instance available, manual edge can not be created.” So multiple Edges on devices with ERI’s can’t be created due to this. While I understand that this feature, in particular, is currently in testing…The entire community has voiced that the Topology feature, as it stands, is in dire need of revision and Dev attention. Version 1.86 has only made things worse.17Views4likes0CommentsRe: Topology Mapping in 1.85
... This is a bit difficult to deal with and hasn’t been an issue in 184 (granted our issue was the map would reset itself after saving to default, but we could at least get that far.) Hi @Jordan-Eil ~ I see that you had a support ticket on this issue. If the issue recurs, you should definitely raise the issue with support again and have us escalate for you. I do have some support tickets, but they are pending for some time (a few months) and I’m looking to see if anyone in the community has had similar issues or perhaps discovered any workarounds for the problem.2Views1like0CommentsTopology Mapping in 1.85
Good Morning All. So while my organizations had some headaches with Topology Mapping I’m curious if anyone is having this issue: Basically when creating a Topology Map, the entire map will reset every 5 minutes within the editor (Working on the Dynamic Mapping). This is a bit difficult to deal with and hasn’t been an issue in 1.84 (granted our issue was the map would reset itself after saving to default, but we could at least get that far.) If anyone has any issues similar to this or has any solutions to prevent this, I’d be happy to hear them. This is the first time in months that we cannot make an accurate map of our core (basically showing our primary back-bone topology).44Views3likes3Comments