there must be a way to configure retention policies for recording data. Also Retention Policy shouldn't be Just global but there must be an option to create multiple retention policies.
by: Muhammad S. | over a year ago | Configuration
Micro Focus Enhancement Requests Portal is moving. We are migrating the IDEAS from this site to the New Idea Exchange on May 6th. For more information on the new Idea Exchange please visit the Community FAQs.
Votes
8
retention policy
by: Muhammad S. | over a year ago | Configuration
Comments
So to make sure I fully understand what is desired. We would want a multi-tier retention policy . This policy would first
1. Have the ability to be applied globally for all recordings
2. A global policy could be overwritten by a "local" policy that may refer to a single endpoint, or a group of endpoints
Question: Should there be classifications within the retention policy? If so, what should they be? For example, we store all recordings online for ready access for 1 year. Then we have "Online Archive" which holds recordings for 3 years, then "Offline Archive" Would love to see comments on how you envision the retention policy to work
1. Yes.
2. You got it right.
Regarding your question, I would say that there should be a way to manage the Storage Utilization obviously via Retention Policy, so that one can configure the system what to do if the Storage is about to full.
In case where a storage is about to get full, I would love to see a configuration option to delete recordings on the basis of:
a) First in First Out
b) On the basis of the endpoint criticality/waitage
On top of it, the use case you shared is so worthed that I started feeling that this Idea would be incomplete without Offline and Offline Archives you discussed.
Thank you for the additional clarification in your last update. Right now I can't say that we have discussed a plan for where to address this need. It is not currently in any of the CY '18 release plans. This could change as I've eluded to in other posts. It is not that this does not make sense, just one of prioritization. This is where voting plays a role in the process and if we see more votes from forum participants we can / will revisit. I see the value in this Idea so it is not an lack of "this is a good idea", its just one of "this is one of many good ideas".