Feature Request: Multiple Monitoring Clients (End-Points)

[bernarddt]

Hi all, I would like to request that the ability to add multiple monitoring services is looked at. Simply because a lot of us may now be transitioning over to the Duplicati Inc monitor service, and it would be cool if Duplicati could post the JSON to multiple services.

I see that it is noted that it cannot do this currently. But I could see anyone asking for it in the forum.

[ts678]

@kenkendk

If there is a feature missing in the portal that you think would make it worthwhile for you to become a customer, please get in touch.

Please don’t use Github issues for request to the portal

Maybe the same advice applies to forum, and I don’t know how some separation will eventually happen.

Regardless, I “think” the response to this feature request is

@kenkendk

@bernarddt

Setup: If it is the case that it is the exact same code (binary) as the open source currently with no difference. So, the only difference may be that we only need to “connect” the open-source system to the “paid” online site monitoring system (like we currently do with “duplicati-monitoring.com”)?

Maybe this was the part you figured out, but yes, if you are using another monitoring solution today, you can switch over quite easily, nothing else changes. I have added a feature that allows having multiple monitoring solutions set up as that was requested. Only the “debug” binaries have this feature for now, but if you use it, you can use the two monitoring systems in parallel.

[kenkendk]

@bernarddt

Hi all, I would like to request that the ability to add multiple monitoring services is looked at. Simply because a lot of us may now be transitioning over to the Duplicati Inc monitor service, and it would be cool if Duplicati could post the JSON to multiple services.

It is already merged into the master branch. There is a debug build with this, and hopefully soon a canary build as well.

Beware that these new builds are all using .NET8 so quite a few things are slightly different.

@ts678

Maybe the same advice applies to forum, and I don’t know how some separation will eventually happen.

Yes, I would say generally:

• Open-source client is discussed and managed via Github and the forum
• Portal is managed with support requests or emails

Unfortunately, I think it is hard for users to figure out what destination is the best. To confuse matters more, there has traditionally been mentions of outside projects and products in this forum.

I try to monitor all the channels and reply even if a request is a bit off.

[ts678]

Added support for sending reports via HTTP(s) to multiple destinations

probably gives the syntax, although I think this was announced (without giving much detail on it) as

@kenkendk

Multiple report destinations, split json and form posts

in 2.0.8.106, and we’re now at 2.0.8.109 (but there is a constant flow of debug versions coming out).
Typically one wants the latest, but neither debug nor canary are really advisable for production uses.

[kenkendk]

@ts678

probably gives the syntax,

To those who do not read code, the format is:

--send-http-form-urls=url1;url2;url3
--send-http-json-urls=url1;url2;url3

The previous method is preserved for backwards compatibility:

--send-http-url=url1
--send-http-format=<Duplicati|Json>

To update to the new format, a destination previously using --send-http-format=Duplicati (also the default format) can use --send-http-form-urls.
For a destination that would use --send-http-format=json can now use --send-http-json-urls.
For multi-destinations, both options can be applied and they both support multiple urls separated with semicolons.