Homepage › Clovertech Forums › Read Only Archives › Cloverleaf › Cloverleaf › Network Monitor for Operator
- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
David Teh.
-
CreatorTopic
-
May 15, 2006 at 2:09 am #48517
David Teh
ParticipantHi folks, Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems QDX 5 was designed without ‘real life’ operations in mind?
The all-in-one, tabbed feature is pretty cool, but how do you restrict operator access to only the network monitor, without resorting to the ‘unsupported’ stuff?
Thanks.
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
May 15, 2006 at 10:45 am #58831
Jim Kosloskey
ParticipantDavid, Advanced Security.
Jim Kosloskey
email: jim.kosloskey@jim-kosloskey.com 29+ years Cloverleaf, 59 years IT - old fart.
-
May 23, 2006 at 1:12 am #58832
David Teh
ParticipantSo, the only way to give the Ops any proper monitoring tools is to throw out more money? 😛 Jim Kosloskey wrote:David,
Advanced Security.
Jim Kosloskey
-
May 23, 2006 at 11:18 am #58833
Anonymous
ParticipantAdd a shortcut to your desktop for hcinetmonitor.exe (located in c:quovadxqdx5.3integratorclguibinunsupported). The operators will only see the monitor, not any of the other stuff Marilyn Mohr MT(ASCP)QLI
Medstar Health
Baltimore, MD
-
May 23, 2006 at 1:31 pm #58834
David Teh
ParticipantThat’s what we’ve done all along. But now that it is an unsupported tool…the hospital “business” owners would want some answers…. 🙂 Marilyn Mohr wrote:Add a shortcut to your desktop for hcinetmonitor.exe (located in c:quovadxqdx5.3integratorclguibinunsupported). The operators will only see the monitor, not any of the other stuff
Marilyn Mohr MT(ASCP)QLI
Medstar Health
Baltimore, MD
-
May 23, 2006 at 5:09 pm #58835
William Grow
ParticipantI guess the subject heading says it all. I spoke to someone about advanced security…they made it out to be more trouble than it was worth. What I am curious to determine is if there is anyone out there with advanced security up and running and how difficult it was to implement. Additionally, can it serve the role of a tool to be able to audit changes made to files. Also, how did you get around the application user default useranme and password ie. u=hci p=****** To me it seems that if you implement advanced security you have to lock them out of the command prompt.
-
June 1, 2006 at 6:33 pm #58836
Anonymous
ParticipantI explored this option to implement advanced security. There are issues with it.
1. To Implement advanced security it is required that SUN’s LDAP server is installed in another server.
when an organization uses Active Directory, LDAP is no use rather it would defeat the purpose of Actice Directory.
2. Cost is high.
Now, having worked on eGate, which has setup for users and based on the defined roles can access the monitor, I asked Quovadx whether they would implement /incorporate the Advanced Security in Standarad QDX.
No response. But I received a call from a sales rep for Global Monitoring. You may want to check that out.
-Reggie-
-
June 1, 2006 at 6:35 pm #58837
Anonymous
ParticipantFrom my experience if you use the unsupported tool, engine panicks frequently. You would see signal 11. -Reggie –
-
July 11, 2006 at 10:33 am #58838
Ken Seachrist
ParticipantWe wrote our own monitor for the operators. It has a file it reads and we have set thresholds on it to determine when the operators should be notified that there is a problem. We have a GUI type view on a web portal part that shows nothing if all is okay, yellow if it is a warning state, and red if there is a problem, meaning that something has exceeeded the set threshold. We tried using the netmonitor.exe, but it just didn’t work because of all of the threads and having to move from site to site to check everything out. It was easier to have them notified by exception. -
July 11, 2006 at 8:50 pm #58839
Chris Brossette
ParticipantI too am against spending additional monies and am using the unsupported tools because my operators have to ‘stop/start’ interfaces occasionally when there is a problem…..not often, but better than calling me in the middle of the night for a simple fix. Having your roll-your-own monitor sounds like a great idea…what about when there is a problem? do you have scripts for the operators?
Thanks,
Chris Brossette
DB/DI Team Leader
MS Baptist Health Systems
Jackson, MS
-
July 12, 2006 at 4:46 pm #58840
James Cobane
ParticipantFor what it’s worth, we provide the Operations Staff with the full IDE, and have them run just the NetMonitor once they bring up the IDE. It’s really just a matter of training and trust with the Operations staff. They have enough to do that they don’t bother playing arounding with the other tools. Jim Cobane
Henry Ford Health
-
July 13, 2006 at 12:30 am #58841
David Teh
ParticipantI certainly agree from an organisation’s point of view…….but the auditors certainly will have something to say about that. 🙂 And that is “real life” for most of us.
James Cobane wrote:For what it’s worth, we provide the Operations Staff with the full IDE, and have them run just the NetMonitor once they bring up the IDE. It’s really just a matter of training and trust with the Operations staff. They have enough to do that they don’t bother playing arounding with the other tools.
Jim Cobane
Henry Ford Health
-
July 13, 2006 at 1:56 pm #58842
Gene Salay
ParticipantHere at Bon Secours we went for the Advanced Security and Global Monitor. It made sense for us because we have a central operations area that manages systems for many sites. We also have development staff at various sites. We contracted with Quovadx to help us implement AdvSec and GM. Living with it and managing users with it is not difficult. I believe AdvSec has two different levels – one simply controls overall access via the GUI and the other provides access control for individual functions. The whole system continues to operate as the hci user, so at the lower level of AdvSec there is no application auditing of modifications. At the higher level, a database tracks all changes. Users who have command line access can still modify files directly without being limited by the AdvSec certificate controls.
GM allows Ops to stop and start interfaces if you would like them to. Note that Alerts also provide the ability to auto-bounce connections as appropriate.
-
July 14, 2006 at 12:05 am #58843
David Teh
ParticipantHi Gene, Sounds like GM is the way to go.
We are not new to Cloverleaf and have implemented stuff like autobouncing of threads/processes via alerts as well.
The integrating of all the tools into one single GUI still don’t make sense to me, though.
🙂 Gene Salay wrote:Here at Bon Secours we went for the Advanced Security and Global Monitor.
-
-
AuthorReplies
- The forum ‘Cloverleaf’ is closed to new topics and replies.