Re: CMDB Classes

[Robert Molenda]

Title: RE: CMDB Classes

** OK, I’ll chime in on this thread, because it is mixing subjects, and honestly both of them are FUN.   THREAD # 1 (not real topic) ITIL “Certification” is just that. Certification ON THEORY. A theory of PROCESSES. Just because you are an ITIL SHOP, you do not need a ITIL Certified tool to perform your work. As long in “Practice” you follow processes, you are doing your job. I am not bashing ITIL, as it does teach people to think about “processes”. But ITIL is just that. Processes. As long as you do “Incident Management” it does NOT say that the window has to say INCIDENT, or the table/form to be called anything like that. HPD:HelpDesk is a good example. It stores in 5X and 6X BOTH PROBLEM and INCIDENT!   Is this the BEST PRACTICE? NO! (7X they are different modules!) There are many PROCESS Reasons to have different tables / screens & PROCESS WORKFLOW between these two very distinct ITIL processes! But Yes, ITSM 5 / 6 (I believe) WAS ITIL Certified!   OK off the soap box, the ITIL and TOOLS topic should be handled in a “new thread” J   THREAD # 0 (the main request) # of Classes in CMDB   Yes it is frustrating. Yes my company has “been there and reduced that”. We are really TODAY using CMDB 1.1 Patch 2 and Asset Management 6X. Out of all the classes, we are using 4, and rolling out a few more.   Computer System Hardware System Component Monitor Network Printer   Next steps are the “network equipment area and Applications”… and then and then…   I agree about the “Concept” of the “Object Orientation Methodology” of CMDB (Object X ‘extends’ Asset Base), but in practice, it is a living nightmare. (Yes this IS Oct 31!) Especially since AR Server can still only join 2 objects at a time. Please Doug, let me join more than 2 objects at the same time! This is not the first time this issue has come up!   One customization placed at the wrong “object layer” because of a bad customization takes so long to correct. New Field, Migrate Data, Remove old field…   Please let us look at reality. The majority of us are interested in mainly “Computer System”   Asset Base – 245+ fields BMC System – 0 additional fields BMC ComputerSystem – 20+ additional Fields   So, for the database cost of a “Asset Base to BMC System” Join there is no additional benefit, and the “Join of that join to Computer System” only gets 20 more fields!   If everything was allocated in the db as CHAR(nn) that would be a space savings, but with everything allocated as VARCHAR(xx) you are not saving allocation space! (ok depends on the DB and version!)   Reporting : OH MAN what a nightmare. Yes, build your BO XI database from the “backwards standpoint” and it works. That is until the user takes a field from say “Computer System” and a field from “Network Printer” and **GASP** Gets 0 results! DDOOUUGGHH… Just TRY (I dare you) to get a single report that has Computer Systems and Network Printers in the same report!   OK now back to reality. I have done a test in creating just one table space with one form which has multiple views (Computer system, etc..) that represents the ‘logical’ component. The table has ALL the needed fields on it, and not the fields which we DO NOT use in Asset Base, etc.   Storage has decreased. Performance has increased. Reporting is vastly simplified.   Analysis still continuing with the strategy of CMDB use,  on the table at this point in time…   OK, that’s scary enough for today! Thanks-n-advance; HDT Platform Incident / Problem Manager & Architect Robert Molenda IT OS PA Tel: +1 408 501 6310 Fax: +1 408 501 2410 Mobile: +1 408 472 8097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quality begins with your actions.     __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ __20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___