Categorizing different Citrix Box roles
So I was asked if we can include all the different Citrix box roles in our Dynamic Citrix Group which looks for any devices that has the Category with different Citrix property sources. For reference there are Citrix StoreFronts (SF) >> Deskstop Delivery Controlers (DDC) >> Provisioning Services Servers (PVS) >> XenApp Farm Servers So for the PVS servers I did created a new Property Source entry and used Embedded Groovy Script and took the content from another PS and just modified the contains xxxx section: import com.santaba.agent.groovyapi.win32.WMI; //================================== def host = hostProps.get("system.hostname"); // get a list of running services def service_list = WMI.queryAll(host, "select * from win32_service"); def datacoreServices = service_list.findAll { service -> service["DISPLAYNAME"].contains("Citrix PVS") } // Did we find any Citrix PVS Services? if (datacoreServices.size() > 0) { println "system.categories=CitrixPVS"; } return(0); //=== END ==== But in searching how to set this up I noticed that DataSources have a much simpler way to query boxes for properties. Example there's a DS called: WinCitrixServices- that in its Active Discovery section we can define the Discovery Method, and the parameters can specify which WMI Class to look at and then easily specify the filter properties, etc..: Why can't Property Sources have this same method to allow me to easily define the criteria I'm looking for? Why is it only groovy or powershell scripts? Also with regards to the different Citrix box roles are there no PVS or StoreFront datasources ?2Views0likes0Comments
Expand role view permissions to include SDT
I would like to propose that there be an additionalcolumn added to both theDevices and Servicesuser permission selectionto allow a user role to manage Scheduled Downtime. Our organization would like to allow application ownersto manage their own SDTs without giving saidgroup management rights to those devices or services inthe logic monitor console.4Views1like1Comment