Where is the sense of adventure? :-P On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM, pritch <[email protected]> wrote:
> just as an FYI - At a breakfast meeting a few weeks ago, a prominent BMC > representative mentioned that it would be a wise decision to NOT upgrade to > 8.0 until SP1 is released shortly thereafter. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carl Wilson" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:00:14 PM > Subject: Re: Integrating 2 or more remedy systems and non remedy systems > > ** > > > Hi, > > the Hub and Spoke technology is designed primarily for "Global" overviews > and to centralise request consoles from multiple systems - drilling down > from the Hub takes you into the Spoke record. > > There are a number of applications that still run locally on the Spoke > servers, including SLM/SRM, etc - so this will not help in SLM syncing as > the request in-fact stay on the Spoke servers to meet data restrictions > policies. > > Cheers > > Carl > > http://www.missingpiecessoftware.com/ > > > > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Miller > Sent: 12 September 2012 20:49 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Integrating 2 or more remedy systems and non remedy systems > > > > ** That will make things much more interesting. That part is beyond my > experience. I have never had the requirement to sync SLAs in a > large distributed environment. > > > > > > > In the Help Desk 6 system I referred to the time lag was surprising small > (and there was an intermediate Remedy system between mine and many of the > others). Of course there are a number of variables that factor into to > this so maybe I was just really lucky :) > > > > > > Will you be in a position to upgrade to ITSM 8 when it comes out? There > is a new Hub and Spoke technology that will be available that may help. > (David referenced it on 3/5 to the List and it is published on a > non-BMC web site so at this point I think mentioning it is fair game ( > http://wwrug12.com/breakouts.html ) > > > > > > Continuing with what is currently available... Are you talking about all > SLAs or just some? Are they things like resolved in x days or responded > to in x minutes? I think the approach will depend on how many SLAs are > being synced and how time sensitive they are. > > > > > > Is it at all possible to have a single authoritative system that attaches > SLA as requests work through the system? It seems to me that there is just > too much complexity trying to pass SLA data between different systems. > Likewise I think it would be pretty large initiative to configure each > system's SLAs exactly the same and keep them that way (to give the illusion > SLA data is synced). And even then you have time inconsistencies between > attached SLAs on different systems. What about SLA notifications? I don't > think you would want a breached SLA to trigger a notification from each > system? > > > > > > Just briefly thinking about this I think the best bet is to keep the SLA > server centralized. You may need to propagate a few types of SLA records > out to the other servers so the SLA indicators work correctly in the UI but > really just for display purposes (still assuming this is BMC's ITSM). > > > > > > Are all of these Remedy systems identical? If they are and there is a > need for a really large number of forms/records/objects to > be synchronized I am wondering if a DB synchronization technology would be > more appropriate? > > > > > > Jason > > _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" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
