Do you have a way to keep them from using the Admin MT in the future? When not running large queries but just because they can. And then they tell their friends and everybody starts using your MT :)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Tauf Chowdhury <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Peter, > We also use the same server group name across environments and use host > files on our local machines to administer each environment when needed. > > In addition to the diagram below, I like having a dedicated mid tier to > the admin box outside of the user load balancer as well. It helps since a > lot of forms don't display properly in the WUT anymore. Also, I'm assuming > you're not allowing unqualified searches on the user facing boxes. I've had > instances where a user needed to run a query beyond the limit we set so > having a mid tier pointing to the admin box allows for those one off > requests as well. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Peter Romain < > [email protected]> wrote: > > ** > > To ask a related question to anyone that has done this already – do you > build all the AR Servers with the same hostname then use the hosts file on > each server to resolve the name back to itself? > > This way there’s no need to edit any configurations if the server is > cloned. > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Dean van > Deventer - Business Connexion > *Sent:* 31 July 2014 15:55 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. > > > > ** > > <image001.jpg> <http://rkshs01.bcx.co.za/rs/25dkoFBy> > > > > > > Hi Brad > > Where is your mid tiers ? do you have load balancers to ensure your HA ? > > > > My end picture would look like this bellow > > > > You would need a load balancer to ensure your HA > > Load all boxes exactly the same you can move the functions with the > rankings > > Only allow server 1 and 2 to be available via the LB for user access your 3 > rd server could still perform the actions you set out for it to perform. > So even if server 3 is struggling your users won’t be affected. > > Without the LB you won’t really have HA, with the picture below you could > actually reboot server as you wish and your users won’t have any impact. > > My 5c o > > > > <image002.png> > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of * > BradRemedy > *Sent:* 31 July 2014 11:38 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Server Groups - Your thoughts please. > > > > ** > > Firstly, thanks for any help you guys can offer. > > > > We are busy upgrading to ITSM 8.1 and want to setup server groups to > ensure we have HA in our environment. Currently on our live environment now > we have a single live server which makes us a little nervous. Our DB is a > clustered DB with a separate instance handling just reporting. This keeps > unnecessary traffic off our live DB which is only for Remedy. > > We are looking at having the following architecture setup: > > > > [image: Setup.JPG] > <https://communities.bmc.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/2-454538-69950/Setup.JPG> > > So Remedy Live App Server 1 and Server 2 are both Physical Servers. The > Remedy Mail and Escalation Server is Virtual Machine server. We wanted to > keep escalations and mail processing off our mail servers and wanted them > to rather focus on providing a ITSM and SRM Service to our users. > > What I want to know, is the above possible ? Do I need to install the ITSM > and SRM applications on the *Remedy mail and escalation server* for it to > work or can I just do a Remedy 8.1 Core installation? Do I also need to > include it in the server group but with its only job as processing mail and > escalations or can I keep it out the server group?. > > > > Also, If I setup the setup group with just the App server 1 in it for now, > can I turn off the "Administration Server" option and use it as normal and > only activate the Administration option when we add in the second server to > the server group at a later stage ? > > > > Are there any problems with the above plan or something I am missing? > > > Any advice is appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
