Better support for single host virtualization servers #2519

Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:19:36 +01:00 by adam · 2 comments
Owner

Originally created by @kasimon on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019).

Issue type

[X] Feature request
[ ] Bug report
[ ] Documentation

Environment

  • Python version: 3.5.3
  • NetBox version: 2.5.2

Proposed Functionality

Currently for single-host virtualization servers (like a one-node vmware setup), the only solution is to create both a device and a cluster object for this server. It would make management of these systems simpler if these two aspects could be combined into one object. Probably the easiest way would be to have a flag for devices that would allow them to host virtual machines directly.

Use Case

Describing single node virtualisation clusters without having to manage two object (device and cluster).

Database Changes

Most likely changes in the Device, Cluster and/or Virtual Machine models.

External Dependencies

None I would be aware of.

Originally created by @kasimon on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019). ### Issue type [X] Feature request [ ] Bug report [ ] Documentation ### Environment * Python version: 3.5.3 * NetBox version: 2.5.2 ### Proposed Functionality Currently for single-host virtualization servers (like a one-node vmware setup), the only solution is to create both a device and a cluster object for this server. It would make management of these systems simpler if these two aspects could be combined into one object. Probably the easiest way would be to have a flag for devices that would allow them to host virtual machines directly. ### Use Case Describing single node virtualisation clusters without having to manage two object (device and cluster). ### Database Changes Most likely changes in the Device, Cluster and/or Virtual Machine models. ### External Dependencies None I would be aware of.
adam added the status: duplicate label 2025-12-29 18:19:36 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:19:36 +01:00
Author
Owner

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019):

This was raised during the discussion under #142 and the consensus was to go with the current model.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019): This was raised during the discussion under #142 and the consensus was to go with the current model.
Author
Owner

@kasimon commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019):

Sorry, I looked for existing tickets but did not find that one.

@kasimon commented on GitHub (Apr 16, 2019): Sorry, I looked for existing tickets but did not find that one.
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#2519