Now that is a bit tricky... To stay "out of the box" we need to think "inside the box" :)
You are absolutely correct. All AR maintained objects will utilize overlays and best practices. What I am talking about are custom DB objects not maintained by the AR System. Most of (if not all of) our custom DB objects are for integration purposes Here are some examples: - The Views that View Forms are created against - Tables that cache data from other systems that View Forms are created against. - In the case of our HR and Financial systems creating View Forms over a Linked DB server were too slow for use in UI workflow (Cost Center and Sub Account Menus/Validation, HR/Finance Locations, etc.) - Stored procedures to populate the cache tables mentioned above - Functions converting to/from epoch time - Function for INITCAP (we're MS SQL so we had to build it) - Stored procedures that other systems use to access Remedy data (yeah we are trying to move most of these to web services when possible). - Views that other systems use to access Remedy data (yeah we are trying to move most of these to web services when possible). - Stored procedures to truncate import Forms (T and H tables) Currently all of these things are in our ARSystem DB. Moving these out would make the ARSystem DB more portable and "pure." Jason On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Easter, David <david_eas...@bmc.com> wrote: > ** > > Just thinking somewhat inside the box – but wouldn’t overlays do the > majority of this for you? Any custom objects you create would be well > known/documented as would any modifications to BMC base objects. The base > BMC objects would remain on the system unchanged. If you really then > wanted to transfer only your extensions and modifications to a new box, > you’d just transfer the custom and overlaid objects.**** > > ** ** > > -David J. Easter**** > > Manager of Product Management, AR System**** > > BSM & Atrium Solutions Management**** > > BMC Software, Inc.**** > > **** > > The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in > this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My > voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a > spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, > Inc.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Jason Miller > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:33 PM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Thoughts regarding a separate DB for custom DB objects**** > > ** ** > > ** **** > > I would like to get some input on something I have been thinking about > recently. I am considering creating a new DB on the same DB server as the > ARSystem DB. This DB would be right next to the ARSystem DB but would > house all of the custom DB work we do. My thought is to have all custom > tables, views, stored procedures, functions, etc. in new DB which would > ideally leave everything in the ARSystem DB created, maintained and > modified via the AR System API or BMC installers. Basically I am picturing > a layer of abstraction or a library of custom objects if you will. Maybe > more like a different namespace or data set for those CMDB gurus out there. > **** > > ** ** > > As it is right now in our very customized 7.5 ARS DB all custom tables, > views, etc. are all intermixed with the ARS maintained objects. We try to > keep our objects lumped together by naming convention but just when my team > starts using the same convention a different DBA (for example) comes along > and uses their favorite convention. If we all agree to only make changes > to the custom DB then naming convention is not as important (DBAs usually > ask which DB do you need something not so much “what is your naming > convention?”).**** > > ** ** > > Another considerations is portability of the ARSystem DB. Right now when > we refresh our production DB to another environment there are things like > different linked server references that need to be updated, object owners, > etc. All objects in the custom DB would have the same names between > environments (Dev, QA, Prod). With all of the custom objects in their own > DB we can move ARSystem DBs between environments and as long as the custom > DB is configured correctly for the environment no changes are needed to any > of ARSystem DB objects.**** > > ** ** > > Our new “out of the box” ITSM 7.6.04 system does not have any custom DB > work done yet but I know it is only a matter of time before the need arises > as we transition between old and new systems. If there are advantages and > no major negative results to this architecture I would like to set this up > while we are still out of the box.**** > > ** ** > > Can anybody think of any negative (or positive) effects of this approach? > I am figuring because it still on the same DB server that there should not > be much performance impact.**** > > ** ** > > Thanks!**** > > Jason **** > > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"