subject:"Re\: Integrating with CTM\:People vs. BMC

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-02 Thread Roger Justice

You still need to use CTM:People the BMC_Person in the CMDB will have an entry 
created when toy do the People save. User entries are created if the People 
record has a login ID.





-Original Message-
From: Pierson, Shawn 
To: arslist 
Sent: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 2:07 pm
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People


** 
Good afternoon,
 
As I’m upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I’d like to do is continue 
to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I built an 
integration where some escalations run and dump the People data into a staging 
form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I have the BMC_People 
class in the CMDB, I’m considering if it would be better to put the data there 
instead, and use that to update the People data.
 
I’d like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It’s obviously easier for me 
to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if there 
is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I’m open to going that 
route instead.
 
Thanks,
 
Shawn Pierson 
Remedy Developer | Southern Union
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, 
please e-mail sender. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers 
Are"_ 

___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-02 Thread Ben Chernys

The BMC_Person is created automatically when a CTM:People record is created
and not the reverse.  

 

In any event, the BMC_Person class is more or less a dummy containing very
few attributes (including critically, the CTM:Person Request ID and Instance
ID) and is there so that (Dependency) relationships may be created between
people and CIs (rather than "only" associations (in AST:AssetPeople).

 

So, if your integration creates CTM:People records, the BMC_Person records
will be created - albeit in the SANDBOX dataset.  Ensure that you have a
proper recon job configured to move it to the BMC.ASSET Dataset.

 

The BMC_Person will most likely be expanded and really used in a (very)
future release.  

 

Cheers

Ben Chernys

Senior Software Architect
Software Tool House Inc.

Canada / Deutschland / Germany
Mobile:  +49 171 380 2329GMT + 1 + [ DST ]
Email: Ben.Chernys _AT_
softwaretoolhouse.com
Web:   www.softwaretoolhouse.com

Check out Software Tool House's free Diary Editor.

Meta-Update, our premium ARS Data tool, lets you automate 
your imports, migrations, in no time at all, without programming, 
without staging forms, without merge workflow. 
  http://www.softwaretoolhouse.com/  

 

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn
Sent: August-02-11 12:07
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

 

** 

Good afternoon,

 

As I'm upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I'd like to do is
continue to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I
built an integration where some escalations run and dump the People data
into a staging form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I
have the BMC_People class in the CMDB, I'm considering if it would be better
to put the data there instead, and use that to update the People data.

 

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It's obviously easier for
me to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if
there is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I'm open to going
that route instead.

 

Thanks,

 

Shawn Pierson 

Remedy Developer | Southern Union

Private and confidential as detailed here
 . If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender. 

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 


___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-02 Thread Tommy Morris

An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates
BMC_PERSON just push to CTM:People and set 'z1d Action' to
"PEOPLESYNC_CREATE" or "PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE". You will be able to see a
new record create in BMC.Sandbox and the reconcile into your CMDB.

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

 

** 

Good afternoon,

 

As I'm upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I'd like to do is
continue to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For
7.0.3, I built an integration where some escalations run and dump the
People data into a staging form that then goes into CTM:People.
However, now that I have the BMC_People class in the CMDB, I'm
considering if it would be better to put the data there instead, and use
that to update the People data.

 

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It's obviously easier
for me to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers,
but if there is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I'm
open to going that route instead.

 

Thanks,

 

Shawn Pierson 

Remedy Developer | Southern Union

Private and confidential as detailed here
 . If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender. 

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 


___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-02 Thread strauss

Does this filter pick or choose which CTM:People entries to populate into 
BMC_People?

I am about to re-develop my integration that takes LDAP data from a SQL Server 
and shoves it into CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups and 
maintains those records with a live feed.  There are currently about 266,400 
people and user records, of which 336 are support staff (that generates about 
341,000 CTM:PPG recs).  When we upgraded to 7.6.04.01 we saw 475 records 
created in the BMC.CORE.BMC_Person table; three more have "appeared" since 
then.  We have made no effort to deal with these, having no experience with the 
CMDB or reconciliation.  After the upgrade we turned off all of the integration 
filters and AIE jobs, although RRR|Chive updates the individual tables from 
production nightly.

Personally, I can only see adding the IT staff initially, but it will probably 
be easiest to filter to the active faculty/staff records (14,170 recs including 
student employees - they have a custom role flag in CTM:People that is set by 
the integration).  Has anyone already tackled this, and able to shed some light 
on the process??

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:31 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates BMC_PERSON just 
push to CTM:People and set 'z1d Action' to "PEOPLESYNC_CREATE" or 
"PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE". You will be able to see a new record create in BMC.Sandbox 
and the reconcile into your CMDB.

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
Good afternoon,

As I'm upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I'd like to do is continue 
to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I built an 
integration where some escalations run and dump the People data into a staging 
form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I have the BMC_People 
class in the CMDB, I'm considering if it would be better to put the data there 
instead, and use that to update the People data.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It's obviously easier for me 
to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if there 
is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I'm open to going that 
route instead.

Thanks,

Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Southern Union
Private and confidential as detailed 
here<http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail>. If you cannot access 
hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_

___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-02 Thread Rick Cook

This isn't based on anything but educated guesses, so with that in mind let
me see if I have the structure down:

In pre-7.6 versions, relationships between People and CIs were dealt with by
querying the CTM:People form.  That was ok, but a case can be made for
managing specific people (not necessarily all) in the CMDB.  So the 7.6 way
we're talking about now is at least a transitional shift away from the
standard people forms toward using the CMDB BMC_People form for setting
relationships between CIs.  That makes a cleaner relational model as well as
a more flexible one.  It also has the benefit of allowing customers who use
a CMDB apart from ITSM the ability to easily do so without giving up the
ability to track people/CI relationships.  Seems a sound strategy to me.

Thoughts?

Rick

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, strauss  wrote:

> **
>
> Does this filter pick or choose which CTM:People entries to populate into
> BMC_People?
>
> ** **
>
> I am about to re-develop my integration that takes LDAP data from a SQL
> Server and shoves it into CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups
> and maintains those records with a live feed.  There are currently about
> 266,400 people and user records, of which 336 are support staff (that
> generates about 341,000 CTM:PPG recs).  When we upgraded to 7.6.04.01 we saw
> 475 records created in the BMC.CORE.BMC_Person table; three more have
> “appeared” since then.  We have made no effort to deal with these, having no
> experience with the CMDB or reconciliation.  After the upgrade we turned off
> all of the integration filters and AIE jobs, although RRR|Chive updates the
> individual tables from production nightly.
>
> ** **
>
> Personally, I can only see adding the IT staff initially, but it will
> probably be easiest to filter to the active faculty/staff records (14,170
> recs including student employees – they have a custom role flag in
> CTM:People that is set by the integration).  Has anyone already tackled
> this, and able to shed some light on the process??
>
> ** **
>
> Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
> Call Tracking Administration Manager
> University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
> http://itsm.unt.edu/ 
>
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Tommy Morris
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:31 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People
>
> ** **
>
> ** 
>
> An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates BMC_PERSON
> just push to CTM:People and set ‘z1d Action’ to “PEOPLESYNC_CREATE” or
> “PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE”. You will be able to see a new record create in
> BMC.Sandbox and the reconcile into your CMDB.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Pierson, Shawn
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People
>
> ** **
>
> ** 
>
> Good afternoon,
>
> ** **
>
> As I’m upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I’d like to do is
> continue to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I
> built an integration where some escalations run and dump the People data
> into a staging form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I
> have the BMC_People class in the CMDB, I’m considering if it would be better
> to put the data there instead, and use that to update the People data.
>
> ** **
>
> I’d like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It’s obviously easier for
> me to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if
> there is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I’m open to going
> that route instead.
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,
>
> ** **
>
> *Shawn Pierson *
>
> Remedy Developer | Southern Union
>
> Private and confidential as detailed 
> here<http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail>.
> If you cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender. 
>
> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 
>
> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_
> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_
>

___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-03 Thread Brian Pancia

The record created in BMC_People is very basic and keys off the login id.
This could be beneficial for integrations.  You could tie multiple people
source systems into the CMDB, reconcile the information, and then push the
info into CTM:People.  This could provide you a way of having virtually
unlimited pointers into unlimited systems for people data.

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:53 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

 

** This isn't based on anything but educated guesses, so with that in mind
let me see if I have the structure down:

In pre-7.6 versions, relationships between People and CIs were dealt with by
querying the CTM:People form.  That was ok, but a case can be made for
managing specific people (not necessarily all) in the CMDB.  So the 7.6 way
we're talking about now is at least a transitional shift away from the
standard people forms toward using the CMDB BMC_People form for setting
relationships between CIs.  That makes a cleaner relational model as well as
a more flexible one.  It also has the benefit of allowing customers who use
a CMDB apart from ITSM the ability to easily do so without giving up the
ability to track people/CI relationships.  Seems a sound strategy to me.

Thoughts?

Rick

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, strauss  wrote:

** 

Does this filter pick or choose which CTM:People entries to populate into
BMC_People?

 

I am about to re-develop my integration that takes LDAP data from a SQL
Server and shoves it into CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups
and maintains those records with a live feed.  There are currently about
266,400 people and user records, of which 336 are support staff (that
generates about 341,000 CTM:PPG recs).  When we upgraded to 7.6.04.01 we saw
475 records created in the BMC.CORE.BMC_Person table; three more have
"appeared" since then.  We have made no effort to deal with these, having no
experience with the CMDB or reconciliation.  After the upgrade we turned off
all of the integration filters and AIE jobs, although RRR|Chive updates the
individual tables from production nightly.

 

Personally, I can only see adding the IT staff initially, but it will
probably be easiest to filter to the active faculty/staff records (14,170
recs including student employees - they have a custom role flag in
CTM:People that is set by the integration).  Has anyone already tackled
this, and able to shed some light on the process??

 

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/ 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:31 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

 

** 

An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates BMC_PERSON
just push to CTM:People and set 'z1d Action' to "PEOPLESYNC_CREATE" or
"PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE". You will be able to see a new record create in
BMC.Sandbox and the reconcile into your CMDB.

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Pierson, Shawn
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

 

** 

Good afternoon,

 

As I'm upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I'd like to do is
continue to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I
built an integration where some escalations run and dump the People data
into a staging form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I
have the BMC_People class in the CMDB, I'm considering if it would be better
to put the data there instead, and use that to update the People data.

 

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It's obviously easier for
me to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if
there is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I'm open to going
that route instead.

 

Thanks,

 

Shawn Pierson 

Remedy Developer | Southern Union

Private and confidential as detailed here
<http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail> . If you cannot access
hyperlink, please e-mail sender. 

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_

_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 


_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ 


___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-10 Thread Garrison, Sean (Norcross)

We are on ITSM 7.6 patch 1 so my answers on based on that.

I personally have found the BMC_Person class rather useless and a waste of time 
to maintain.  The reason is that most of the ITSM workflow fires on the 
AST:AssetPeople relationships.  In addition the related CIs on the CTM:People 
form will not show up when looking at the people record unless you go through 
AST:AssetPeople.

I heard rumors though that in later versions of remedy that there was a design 
to merge BMC_Person and CTM:People into one table.

Thanks,

Sean

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:53 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

** This isn't based on anything but educated guesses, so with that in mind let 
me see if I have the structure down:

In pre-7.6 versions, relationships between People and CIs were dealt with by 
querying the CTM:People form.  That was ok, but a case can be made for managing 
specific people (not necessarily all) in the CMDB.  So the 7.6 way we're 
talking about now is at least a transitional shift away from the standard 
people forms toward using the CMDB BMC_People form for setting relationships 
between CIs.  That makes a cleaner relational model as well as a more flexible 
one.  It also has the benefit of allowing customers who use a CMDB apart from 
ITSM the ability to easily do so without giving up the ability to track 
people/CI relationships.  Seems a sound strategy to me.

Thoughts?

Rick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, strauss 
mailto:stra...@unt.edu>> wrote:
**
Does this filter pick or choose which CTM:People entries to populate into 
BMC_People?

I am about to re-develop my integration that takes LDAP data from a SQL Server 
and shoves it into CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups and 
maintains those records with a live feed.  There are currently about 266,400 
people and user records, of which 336 are support staff (that generates about 
341,000 CTM:PPG recs).  When we upgraded to 7.6.04.01 we saw 475 records 
created in the BMC.CORE.BMC_Person table; three more have "appeared" since 
then.  We have made no effort to deal with these, having no experience with the 
CMDB or reconciliation.  After the upgrade we turned off all of the integration 
filters and AIE jobs, although RRR|Chive updates the individual tables from 
production nightly.

Personally, I can only see adding the IT staff initially, but it will probably 
be easiest to filter to the active faculty/staff records (14,170 recs including 
student employees - they have a custom role flag in CTM:People that is set by 
the integration).  Has anyone already tackled this, and able to shed some light 
on the process??

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Tommy 
Morris
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:31 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates BMC_PERSON just 
push to CTM:People and set 'z1d Action' to "PEOPLESYNC_CREATE" or 
"PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE". You will be able to see a new record create in BMC.Sandbox 
and the reconcile into your CMDB.

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Pierson, 
Shawn
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
Good afternoon,

As I'm upgrading from ITSM 7.0.3 to 7.6.4, one thing I'd like to do is continue 
to have my People data updated from Active Directory.  For 7.0.3, I built an 
integration where some escalations run and dump the People data into a staging 
form that then goes into CTM:People.  However, now that I have the BMC_People 
class in the CMDB, I'm considering if it would be better to put the data there 
instead, and use that to update the People data.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.  It's obviously easier for me 
to take my pre-existing code and migrate it to my 7.6.4 servers, but if there 
is an advantage to loading it into BMC_People first, I'm open to going that 
route instead.

Thanks,

Shawn Pierson
Remedy Developer | Southern Union
Private and confidential as detailed 
here<http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail>. If you cannot access 
hyperlink, please e-mail sender.
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers 
Are"_
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the A

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

2011-08-10 Thread strauss

We load people from a Peoplesoft->LDAP->SQL Server source with AIE, pushing to 
a custom form, then to CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups as well 
as User Preferences.  To get that working again on the 7.6.04.01 system 
(developed/used originally on ITSM 7.0) required that I overlay and disable all 
39 of the filters that load and maintain BMC_Person.  We will revisit them when 
we can control who they are injecting - less than 10,000 records for active 
employees versus 266,000.  OOTB, it wants to try to load them all.  In this 
version, you may be correct that what we want in Asset to User relationships 
can all be done without populating BMC_Person; it's on my "to-do list" to find 
out.

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Garrison, Sean (Norcross)
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:27 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
We are on ITSM 7.6 patch 1 so my answers on based on that.

I personally have found the BMC_Person class rather useless and a waste of time 
to maintain.  The reason is that most of the ITSM workflow fires on the 
AST:AssetPeople relationships.  In addition the related CIs on the CTM:People 
form will not show up when looking at the people record unless you go through 
AST:AssetPeople.

I heard rumors though that in later versions of remedy that there was a design 
to merge BMC_Person and CTM:People into one table.

Thanks,

Sean

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Cook
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:53 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

** This isn't based on anything but educated guesses, so with that in mind let 
me see if I have the structure down:

In pre-7.6 versions, relationships between People and CIs were dealt with by 
querying the CTM:People form.  That was ok, but a case can be made for managing 
specific people (not necessarily all) in the CMDB.  So the 7.6 way we're 
talking about now is at least a transitional shift away from the standard 
people forms toward using the CMDB BMC_People form for setting relationships 
between CIs.  That makes a cleaner relational model as well as a more flexible 
one.  It also has the benefit of allowing customers who use a CMDB apart from 
ITSM the ability to easily do so without giving up the ability to track 
people/CI relationships.  Seems a sound strategy to me.

Thoughts?

Rick
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM, strauss 
mailto:stra...@unt.edu>> wrote:
**
Does this filter pick or choose which CTM:People entries to populate into 
BMC_People?

I am about to re-develop my integration that takes LDAP data from a SQL Server 
and shoves it into CTM:People, User, and CTM:PeoplePermissionGroups and 
maintains those records with a live feed.  There are currently about 266,400 
people and user records, of which 336 are support staff (that generates about 
341,000 CTM:PPG recs).  When we upgraded to 7.6.04.01 we saw 475 records 
created in the BMC.CORE.BMC_Person table; three more have "appeared" since 
then.  We have made no effort to deal with these, having no experience with the 
CMDB or reconciliation.  After the upgrade we turned off all of the integration 
filters and AIE jobs, although RRR|Chive updates the individual tables from 
production nightly.

Personally, I can only see adding the IT staff initially, but it will probably 
be easiest to filter to the active faculty/staff records (14,170 recs including 
student employees - they have a custom role flag in CTM:People that is set by 
the integration).  Has anyone already tackled this, and able to shed some light 
on the process??

Christopher Strauss, Ph.D.
Call Tracking Administration Manager
University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
http://itsm.unt.edu/
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Tommy 
Morris
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:31 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
An OOB filter triggers off of CTM:People that creates/ updates BMC_PERSON just 
push to CTM:People and set 'z1d Action' to "PEOPLESYNC_CREATE" or 
"PEOPLESYNC_UPDATE". You will be able to see a new record create in BMC.Sandbox 
and the reconcile into your CMDB.

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>] On Behalf Of Pierson, 
Shawn
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 1:07 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG<mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
Subject: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

**
Good afternoon,

As I&#x

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

Re: Integrating with CTM:People vs. BMC_People

8 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information