Starting with cdm_mcs_templates 6.34, Disk(s) is a child of Default Disk(s). The problem with having it as a child is that there are 2^(number of disk drives your organization may monitor) permutations of monitoring profiles for disk drives. My organization has 2^22=4,194,304 (A:\, B:\, V:\ are always off and C:\ is always on) possibilities. We currently have 90 permutations in use, but this can change. I can't create that many different USM groups, it would be completely unmanageable.
So, I took the Default Disk(s)-2.53.xml template and removed the child data for it. I took that child data and placed it in Disk(s)-2.42.xml (attached), along with the messages container from Default Disks. Unfortunately, I get a failure every time I try to activate this new template.
I want to use all of the new options available from Default Disk(s) but I can't use Default Disk(s) due to variability of the drive configurations we have. I don't think it was a good idea to only have Disk(s) as a child because of this issue. As a child, the Group Profile Priority is established at the parent level and the <removals> section causes fixed disks to be deleted when a new Default Disk(s) is applied. You can't layer them like you can with Disk(s) as a parent. I have USM groups with SQL lookup tables that assign devices to the correct drive letter USM group for MCS monitoring application. It would be best to have both options: Default Disk(s) with Disk(s) as a child for enterprise organizations that have strictly defined drive configurations and Disk(s) as a parent for MSPs or those that have less control over drive configurations.
Here is link to an older version of Disk(s) that I modified to add some missing features. I would like to further modify and update that original post with this if I can get it working.
Can anyone spot what is wrong with the template and help me fix this so it will work with all of the added options for monitoring using MCS?
Modifying templates can be tricking. From a Support perspective it is not recommended and that is based on what a developer told me. That said there is this other thread with info from a Services engineer on it. Note that his update was in regards to a different template, still it may be helpful.