Analysis for Master operators and an error in its display

I have been looking to produce an Analysis to look for any machines which have no Administrators except the Master operators…
While doing this, I have been using " names of administrators of clients" and then trying to get it to display only the non masters operators or return “None” …

Howewer, with 9.2.6.94, im no longer getting actual names returned in the Analysis… Im getting __op5 for example …

the Main server is not on a domain and connects via ldap to AD…
So there seems to be some issues with name resolution …
Can anyone confirm this and perhaps suggest a way to display non master operators only?..

I checked some previous analyses that used to display the operator name correctly, and those fail too displaying __op(x) instead of the actual name…
The Client administrators column in the Computers window picker does display the names correctly…

Cheers…
Pete

Are we talking client or session relevance here?

The client has no knowledge of new (8.2 and later created) operator names. It only has what is in the masthead and its settings and those are the __op names. The session relevance I believe can get to the information but not sure how, will have to look it up if that’s where you are looking for it.

1 Like

Hi Alan… thanks for the reply…
I think I understand… All i need to know is a quick way to identify which clients have only master operators…
We divide out setup into departments which are “filtered” by a Dept_ID Role and group and for those on the domain , their OU on the AD…

So for machines that are stand alone, or have not filtered correctly , identifying those will help with diagnosis of the filtering etc…

Thanks.

Couldn’t you just do this roughly based upon the number of administrators of clients ?

If it is equal to the number of master operators, then that computer is all by itself.

Aha… i knew I was overthinking this…
Thank you Sir…

1 Like

Actually, “number of administrators of clients” doesn’t take into consideration Master Operators… so the relevant has to look for 0 rather than 5 (which is the number of potential master operators.)…
Its Working now so I can rest easy :smile:
Thanks all

1 Like

That is even better so that you don’t have to change the number if the number of Master Operators changes.