starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Allow Virtual Machines to be Grouped outside of Clusters #9144

New Issue
Open
opened 2025-12-29 20:46:11 +01:00 by adam · 12 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:11 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @KjellWolf on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024).

NetBox version

v3.7.0

Feature type

Data model extension

Proposed functionality

We would like to be able to group virtual machines, outside of a cluster definition.
We create "projects" ourselves or for our tenants, as several projects can originate from one tenant, as well as other contacts.

The suggestion would therefore be to create a "VM Groups" section under "Virtualisation > Virtual Machines".
options:
Main:

  • Name, Status, Description, Tenant

Resources:

  • Virtual Machines [Name, Status, Primary IPv4/v6, Platform, Service Names,

  • Contacts and Journal

every other customisation we need is handled with the customisation options already provided

Use case

As mentioned, there are often projects that require a logical combination of VMs in one view, but do not form a cluster as such.

This simplifies the view of which servers belong together to the corresponding customer order and who is the contact person at the customer or internally for the project.

Database changes

No response

External dependencies

No response

Originally created by @KjellWolf on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024). ### NetBox version v3.7.0 ### Feature type Data model extension ### Proposed functionality We would like to be able to group virtual machines, outside of a cluster definition. We create "projects" ourselves or for our tenants, as several projects can originate from one tenant, as well as other contacts. The suggestion would therefore be to create a "VM Groups" section under "Virtualisation > Virtual Machines". options: Main: - Name, Status, Description, Tenant Resources: - Virtual Machines [Name, Status, Primary IPv4/v6, Platform, Service Names, - Contacts and Journal every other customisation we need is handled with the customisation options already provided ### Use case As mentioned, there are often projects that require a logical combination of VMs in one view, but do not form a cluster as such. This simplifies the view of which servers belong together to the corresponding customer order and who is the contact person at the customer or internally for the project. ### Database changes _No response_ ### External dependencies _No response_
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:12 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024):

It sounds like tags or a custom field would work well for this purpose.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024): It sounds like tags or a custom field would work well for this purpose.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024):

Tags and custom flields do not have the Options we need all at once.
We need this as seperate pages to sort in other custom flields we already use Like Docs.

It wouldnt give us the clarity of all information we need at once

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024): Tags and custom flields do not have the Options we need all at once. We need this as seperate pages to sort in other custom flields we already use Like Docs. It wouldnt give us the clarity of all information we need at once
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024):

Sorry, what specific functionality are you looking for that wouldn't be possible?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024): Sorry, what specific functionality are you looking for that wouldn't be possible?
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024):

When I search for a tenant under Related Objects, I can see Projects/VM Groups there.

When I click on the group I have a window with the related VMs and the other information I specified and see only the objects I need.

We would add a link field to our documentation for this project and customer specific contacts for this VM group.

I cloud hijack the cluster groupings for this, I know, but a separate entry would be better in our opinion.

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 24, 2024): When I search for a tenant under Related Objects, I can see Projects/VM Groups there. When I click on the group I have a window with the related VMs and the other information I specified and see only the objects I need. We would add a link field to our documentation for this project and customer specific contacts for this VM group. I cloud hijack the cluster groupings for this, I know, but a separate entry would be better in our opinion.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@stavr666 commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2024):

Cluster Type / Cluster Group / Cluster works (almost) perfectly for similar cases:

image

Yes, the "cluster" terminology looks confusing for actual projects/tenants/orgs/groups in clouds or containerized deployments (and in some cases, there is missing actual infrastructure context, like assigned VMs for deployments, or multisite structure), but it's still usable for described scenario.

@stavr666 commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2024): Cluster Type / Cluster Group / Cluster works (almost) perfectly for similar cases: ![image](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/assets/84839985/5b135b3e-72e1-48a5-955d-d2d06d89d32e) Yes, the "cluster" terminology looks confusing for actual projects/tenants/orgs/groups in clouds or containerized deployments (and in some cases, there is missing actual infrastructure context, like assigned VMs for deployments, or multisite structure), but it's still usable for described scenario.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2024):

@stavr666 yes, I mentioned it. But it's then it's like you said confusing and not every time applicable.
more so with staff in training.

I still pitched this as an Idea to my management.

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (Jan 26, 2024): @stavr666 yes, I mentioned it. But it's then it's like you said confusing and not every time applicable. more so with staff in training. I still pitched this as an Idea to my management.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@uppsju commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024):

Would an alternative be to use Tenant Groups? E.g for each client you have, you create a separate tenant group. Then you could create one tenant for each project for that customer.

@uppsju commented on GitHub (Jan 29, 2024): Would an alternative be to use Tenant Groups? E.g for each client you have, you create a separate tenant group. Then you could create one tenant for each project for that customer.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2024):

@KjellWolf I'm triaging some backlogged issues and came across this one. Did @uppsju's suggestion of fielding Tenant Groups to achieve your aim pan out? If so, please close the issue. If not, please make revisions to your original issue body addressing the shortcomings of Tags, Custom Fields, and Tenant Groups.

@jeffgdotorg commented on GitHub (Apr 3, 2024): @KjellWolf I'm triaging some backlogged issues and came across this one. Did @uppsju's suggestion of fielding Tenant Groups to achieve your aim pan out? If so, please close the issue. If not, please make revisions to your original issue body addressing the shortcomings of Tags, Custom Fields, and Tenant Groups.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@arthanson commented on GitHub (May 15, 2024):

@KjellWolf any feedback on the above suggestion from uppsju? I will close this soon if no feedback.

@arthanson commented on GitHub (May 15, 2024): @KjellWolf any feedback on the above suggestion from uppsju? I will close this soon if no feedback.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (May 15, 2024):

While Tenant Groups could be an option, they may not perfectly fit your Client > Project > VM structure, especially with multiple clusters and loose VM groups. The proposed "VM Groups" section offers a more tailored solution. It allows for granular organization, independent of clusters, reflecting your project hierarchy effectively. This ensures seamless management and clarity in customer orders and internal coordination.

@KjellWolf commented on GitHub (May 15, 2024): While Tenant Groups could be an option, they may not perfectly fit your Client > Project > VM structure, especially with multiple clusters and loose VM groups. The proposed "VM Groups" section offers a more tailored solution. It allows for granular organization, independent of clusters, reflecting your project hierarchy effectively. This ensures seamless management and clarity in customer orders and internal coordination.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2024):

I'll tag this as "needs milestone" for potential future implementation.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (May 17, 2024): I'll tag this as "needs milestone" for potential future implementation.
adam commented 2025-12-29 20:46:14 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@doc-sheet commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025):

It would be nice to set resource values for group to share memory / cpu etc limits for all vms in group.

@doc-sheet commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025): It would be nice to set resource values for group to share memory / cpu etc limits for all vms in group.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label complexity: medium needs milestone netbox status: backlog type: feature
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#9144
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?