Audit Log data
We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
Remember that as of 7.5 when you create/ modify a CTM:People record a new BMC_Person is created in the Sandbox then reconciled into BMC_Person. We found out when we ran our People update job and ground the system to a halt due to the reconciliation job running inline instead of scheduled. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
As an aside. has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!).. Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time ( 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
Yep, I noticed that too. That's a nasty omission IMO. In our case, adding an index took it down to subsecond query times when viewing the audit log. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Matt Reinfeldt Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:39 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** As an aside... has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!) Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time ( 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
What field did you add an index on? Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc. Analyst, Service Management Mobile:646.483.2779 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** Yep, I noticed that too. That's a nasty omission IMO. In our case, adding an index took it down to subsecond query times when viewing the audit log. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Matt Reinfeldt Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:39 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** As an aside... has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!) Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time ( 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ ** This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are
Re: Audit Log data
I have two indexes on the form. One on Original Request ID and another on Log Key 1. Log Key 1 is probably more significant, because I believe that's the field that gets joined to when viewing the Audit Log in the application. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** What field did you add an index on? Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc. Analyst, Service Management Mobile:646.483.2779 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** Yep, I noticed that too. That's a nasty omission IMO. In our case, adding an index took it down to subsecond query times when viewing the audit log. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Matt Reinfeldt Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:39 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** As an aside... has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!) Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time ( 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e
Re: Audit Log data
When upgrading to CMDB 7.6p1 you receive a warning saying that you need to remove any indexes prior to upgrade so keep that in mind as well. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:58 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** I have two indexes on the form. One on Original Request ID and another on Log Key 1. Log Key 1 is probably more significant, because I believe that's the field that gets joined to when viewing the Audit Log in the application. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Chowdhury, Tauf Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** What field did you add an index on? Tauf Chowdhury | Forest Laboratories, Inc. Analyst, Service Management Mobile:646.483.2779 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:46 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** Yep, I noticed that too. That's a nasty omission IMO. In our case, adding an index took it down to subsecond query times when viewing the audit log. Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Matt Reinfeldt Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:39 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** As an aside... has anyone else noticed that OOB these forms have no indexes? So, if you have a large number of Incidents with lots of activity and you try to 'View Audit Log', it may take a while to open up (I've seen up to 45 seconds or more!) Adding a single index to the underlying HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem form will bring that back down to a manageable time ( 1-3 seconds). I honestly haven't checked in 7.5 or 7.6, though, to see if that was cleaned up. Anyway, Happy Friday everyone! Matt R. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ramey, Anne Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:55 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Audit Log data ** If you truly do not use it, then don't bring it over. You are right that imports should create a new audit record for those entries, so nothing should be broken by not importing the old data. You just lose that information. Anne Ramey From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of strauss Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 1:44 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Audit Log data ** We are in the process of testing the move of all necessary data from an ITSM 7.0 system to an ITSM 7.6 system, which we will have to do again or at least update prior to moving the 7.6 system into production. Several of the tables with data are the three aliased identically (by some clueless BMC programmer(s)) as HelpDesk System Audit Log - they are really CTM:AuditLogSystem, HPD:HelpDesk_AuditLogSystem, and CHG:ChangeRequest_AuditLogSystem. The HPD one has 193 K records, and the CTM one has over 2 million records. We don't use Change enough for those records to matter (138 of them). Does anyone have a feel for how abandon-able this data is??? We have been studying it, and don't really see any utility in bringing it forward. We have never used it for anything, so I don't think we're going to miss it - unless doing so breaks something in the plumbing. The act of importing our CTM:People data generated one NEW CTM:AuditLogSystem record for every person imported or updated (rrrchive overwrite moved 214,966 records); bringing in the data from the source server would overwrite that, but why bother at all?? At this point, those 2 million-plus records look expendable to me. Any thoughts from the list?? Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _Platinum Sponsor: rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
