I can recommend various approaches:
- Single NAM monitor for each single endpoint you want to check
- One NAM monitor, configured with one step checking multiple endpoints
- One NAM monitor, configured with multiple steps, one for each endpoint
All of them are valid, and selecting the best approach depends on your use cases and the goals you want to achieve.
Let’s start by reminding you how the requests differ from steps; see separate question. Additionally, let’s keep in mind the rules according to which NAM monitors trigger the problems.
So, the approach with a single NAM Monitor for each of your targets is the most recommended when you want to receive separate problems and notifications in case of failure of each of your hosts/devices/services. You should also consider that approach if you need to adjust the monitor configuration to the targets (location(-s), frequency, number of packets or packet size used in ping, etc.). The potential disadvantage here is the need for a bit bigger effort in case of applying configuration changes, as you’ll need to adjust a bigger number of monitors.
An approach with multiple targets placed within a single step of the monitor has the clear advantage of easier maintenance, as you’ll need to update a smaller number of monitors. Additionally, the number of triggered Problems will be lower (still with details indicating failing hosts/devices within the Problem details). Of course, as the configuration is common, all your targets are tested with the same frequency, from the same location, with the same number of packets etc.
Finally, multi-step configuration could be used to break the monitor’s execution after failure. I can imagine a scenario of pinging hosts within a remote network segment. You will probably start by checking the availability of the gateway, and if it does not respond, you might like to skip executing pings against other hosts.
