DO Ideas 2

Group and/or tag servers

If I have multiple servers with you, I think it would be nice to be able to group them together. For example, if I am building out an infrastructure, I'd like to have a group of front-end servers, a group of memcached servers, a group of database servers, etc. Perhaps coincide with the load balancer suggestion.

  • Micheal Cottingham
  • Sep 11 2018
  • Shipped
  • Sep 11, 2018

    Admin Response

    Hi everyone, We just announced the release of Droplet Tagging in the control panel today. You can now apply tags and filter your Droplets by tag. You can read more about the release here: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/blog/droplet-tagging-organize-your-infrastructure/ And how to apply tags here: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-tag-digitalocean-droplets https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-droplet-tagging-with-the-digitalocean-api We are planning to extend the availability of tags to other resources like Domains, Floating IPs, and Block Storage Volumes as well as letting you manage entire groups of resources at once using tags. As always, thank you for the feedback.
  • Attach files
  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Agreed, when I have loads of droplets the page looks really cluttered and it is difficult to find individual droplets.

  • Joshua Pinter commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Feature "STARTED", whoop whoop!!

  • Arnold Hendriks commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I'm grouping droplets together by tagging them with 'group_<groupid>', basically as a 'sub-team' feature. I'm also trying to avoid any local state, so tags are all I have to go on (so being able to tag volumes and especially floating ips would be nice too)

    Unfortunately, creating and tagging cannot be done in one atomic API, and if my script fails between droplet creation and tagging the droplets have no tags, complicating automatic cleanup

    If tags would get autocreated if they don't exist yet, it would save a few API calls (get grouptag, create-if-not-exists) too.

  • Mark commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Also the ability to filter, so I can see only the droplets for a Product or for a tag type like DNS servers for all products

  • Mark commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Yes, the ability to tag each server with a predefined name plus custom entries would be great. For example, I can tag the server as 'Product' and then tag the servers within that product like DNS, Web, Database, Mail, etc.

  • The Digital Orchard commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Glad to hear it. With 20+ droplets, this feature will greatly help with organization.

  • Tural Aliyev commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    It's my feedback:
    As a user I frequently need droplet grouping feature. I mean, project based grouping servers. Can you please implement this feature?

  • Emilio Campos commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1
    We have more than 15 servers right now of 2 projects and it is very annoying to all of them listed without any kind of order. I propose to create folders and be able to move the droplets inside
    Please develop this property.

  • William Daniels commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +100 on this idea. It'd be great to be able to separate them visually on the control panel as well. Even something as simple as collapsing servers that have the same tag would be really great for me.

  • KnowledgePower Marketing commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Agree, at minimum a plain tagging system that users can use however they want, or just copy AWS where you can specify key+value pairs

  • Tyler Youschak commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I feel that it would be great if on the main droplet overview page (which shows all of droplets), we had the option to create groups of servers. For example, we could create a group called "x's client servers", "database servers", "node balancing servers", etc. We could then add servers to each of these groups and these groups could be collapsable. I feel that it would be a great way to organize 50+ droplets, as it can get extremely overwhelming.

  • Dan Jallits commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Agreed.... I really, really love DigitalOcean, but not having the ability to tag droplets for an Ansible dynamic inventory is a deal breaker for me to migrate some of my larger projects over.

  • Chip Marshall commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    This would be very handy when using a dynamic inventory with Ansible.

  • Brandon Wiele commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1 on this. Ability to tag servers would be great. Groups would be useful too, but the ability to filter my list of droplets by tag would be awesome.

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    On one of my accounts, I have tens of droplets, ordered by creation date; which is confusing.

    I want to group droplets. Also it will be great if I can know the cost of each group.

  • Mateo Moore commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I would love the ability to:

    - Sort (e.g., A-Z, Z-A) and/or filter Droplets by name, tag, memory, disk, region, and image type

    - Add tags to Droplets so that I can group/organize them (e.g., tags like Services, Clients, Staging, Production, etc.)

    - Search field to filter list of Droplets

    - Drag and drop the order of Droplets for custom ordering

    - To put Droplets in folders (e.g., great for grouping similar sites or multi client sites)

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Would really love this feature too!

  • Tom Davies commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Definitely a +3 on this. The ability to group and tag would make DigitalOcean more production and infrastructure friendly

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1 - This would be really useful...

  • Barry @ Real Life Design commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Hi Moisey,

    It's good to hear this is in the pipeline. Has there been any progress on this recently?

    You asked about tags or groups. Personally tags with simple filtering would be useful to me, as these could be used in a variety of ways with filtering- much like gmail.

    For example, selecting "Client1" would show me all servers for a given client. "Ruby" would show all Ruby based servers, "Drupal" would show all the Drupal sites, and so on.

    I can see others would prefer groups although I would imagine this may be more difficult in the implementation due to level of depth and wouldn't have the same flexibility as tags in my opinion.

    If it's possible to implement both, then I'm sure that would keep everybody happy, depending on how they logical want to have their droplets managed.

    Thanks!

    Barry

  • Martin Werner commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1. This is a must have!

  • Peter Adams commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +3. I use naming schemes that don't always indicate what the server is for or which client is on them, so it would be nice to be able to tag the server (the same way you tag a blog).

  • Erika Reinaldo commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1 to this! Would be super useful.

  • Matt Horner commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Managing lots of servers for multiple projects this would be great just to view them.
    To have the bills split even better but yeh.

    This would be great.

  • Mikkel Breum commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Yes I agree, tagging is a good way, then it would be possible to group/filter/sort droplets by type (infrastructure role, or by Client/Project). I have many clients, each with one or more droplets, and I would like to group droplets by Client for example, but also by status (Dev and Production).

  • Biji commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Yes, tagging instances is important for quick notes and show the tag in droplets list

  • Barry @ Real Life Design commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I'd also like to register my interest in this. It would make adopting DigitalOcean for *all* our new server requirements very attractive. I suspect that the *lack* of this feature would put off people looking for larger scale deployments, or managing many client servers (as I do). Who knows how many people may have discounted DO as a solution because this is missing?

    Tagging is surely the best way to go and avoids the complexities of managing hierarchies in the data. Also, tagging provides a whole variety of benefits from an API querying perspective. Many gains to be had!! :)

    I'm hoping "los capitanos" at DigitalOcean can implement this soon, or least provide us all with an update on their latest thoughts and plans.

    Thanks.

  • SerJ commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Maybe better to try to implement it like an Amazon made https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/Using_Tags.html.
    For Ansible that will be even better, because i can use tags as host variables and as host groups.

  • Darrel O&#39;Pry commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Tags over groups. Is there any ETA on this feature. would be really useful with ansible dynamic inventories. I would be happy with it as an API only feature until the UI catches up.

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Yes - having groups at least on the API level to do basic functions like restart all servers in this group, etc. would be great.

    A fantastic implementation of groups and grouping is done in Ansible's playbooks - that might be a good starting point for inspiration.

  • Cyril Nicodème commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Moreover, it would be even awesome if this functionnality could be connected with "Ability to pay for each server separately" https://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean/suggestions/5380306-ability-to-pay-for-each-server-separately - or be able to pay for each group separately.

  • Cyril Nicodème commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    This is a good idea. It would also be possible to separate servers by projects, which is my case. I'm waiting for this too ! :)

  • vivo (Victor Volle) commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00
  • vivo (Victor Volle) commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I would very much prefer tags over (nested) groups

  • Toby Johnson commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Would really like to be able to have custom tags & filtering.

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    any eta?

  • Arnaud Rouyer commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Tags over groups, more flexible.

    Also, is there an ETA for this? It's been almost one year since it went into "Planned" but no news since then.

    Thanks

  • Dom Hodgson commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Any update on this? we've about 140 DO servers and would really like to be able to group servers

  • Martin Thorsen Ranang commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1 for the general "tagging"-based solution plus support for filtering. It scales well with the number of servers and groups. Predefined numbers of levels doesn't.

  • Anonymous commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I'd prefer both but I'm +1 on tags if it comes to a choice. What is the current status of adding this feature?

  • Sam Edney commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    +1 on this. Would be good to be able to add VM's to folders or tag servers and browse via those tags. Sometimes we want to group by client, other times by the software installed on that box.

  • Charlie Knudsen commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I think tags would be the way to go for people that want to use the data for automating and discovery. Tags along with something like AWS user data really bring a lot of power via things like cloud init and api based discovery.

    This feature really and some documentation could close out 4 or 5 uservoice requests.

  • Moisey Uretsky commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Can you give us a bit more of a description of what you are looking for, would love to hear more!

    Thanks!

  • Pablo commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00
  • WyriHaximus commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Is there any ETA on this feature? I like to update my capistrano scripts so they can target all tagged servers for deployment.

  • Mustafa Khattab commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Tagging is more flexible than grouping since one can emulate the semantics of groups using tags. I'd like to add another use case for the importance of tagging when it comes to using configuration management tools like Ansible or Chef (which already has a tagging feature).

  • Pablo commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Couldn't this be accomplished with Puppet?

  • Craig Slusher commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    This will be great .. I'm assuming that this will be an option in the APIs as well?

  • Josh Dechant commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I know this is planned. Any updates on when we might expect to see it? Once you get beyond about 10 nodes/droplets, tagging becomes important to help keep them organized, especially since order of droplets in the admin is just the order they were created in.

  • Nemanja Andrejevic commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I don't think that anyone would need more than 2 or 3 lvl's deep categories.

  • woblit commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I think this would be awesome. Really needed on my side. Perhaps even allowing you to create sub accounts and give each sub-account permissions to a different group / different servers would be good. Allowing employees to only access servers relating to a particular project / group.

  • Moisey Uretsky commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Planned! =]

  • Álvaro Justen commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    I think a better solution is to create tags and then tag droplets. So I can have a droplet tagged with "apache2" *and* "bind9" - groups are mutually exclusive and I don't like them on classifying things because of this.

  • David Parlevliet commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Right, but gmail also implements the tag feature in a non-traditional manner. Tags in the traditional sense are a discoverable tool not an organisational tool (think youtube). But, gmail makes them useful by bringing the illusion forward that it is a type of folder -- it's just that your email can now exist in many folders instead of one.

    So, I would agree with you and say that if tags were to be chosen over folders then it should be done in the same or similar manner to gmail. I would consider that a compromise.

  • Eric commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    When I moved to gmail years ago I was frustrated that they didn't have folders and only offered tags. Now that I have been using it for a long time, tags have really grown on me. It allows me to organize single items into multiple groups since I can assign multiple tags.

    So, while I understand the desire for folders/categories, I would prefer to see tags.

  • David Parlevliet commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    If it helps, I made the same recommendation recently to another application that I use every day and one of the responses from another user was for tags as well as or instead of folders. So, I'd say both, despite the fact I find tags absolutely useless at organising anything.

  • David Parlevliet commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Personally groups, I find tags annoying but I can only speak for myself and I'm only one person in an expanding organisational obsessed population. So, if you want to make everyone happy, probably both :)

  • Moisey Uretsky commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    Would people prefer groups or tags or both?

  • Moisey Uretsky commented
    September 11, 2018 20:00

    We had this originally and then removed it as we were in the processing of rethinking how many levels deep users wanted the groups.

    It is the on the roadmap and will be eventually introduced supporting at least groups and subgroups and possibly more levels of recursion.