Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Loadbalancer will direct traffic to the various MT servers and the to the application servers If only 2 is customer facing pp servers then only those 2 will be added to your LB configuration make sure you have the Lifespan setting enabled in your midtiers You will no longer need the sticky bit on the LB between your MT and ARServers On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, BradRemedy wrote: > ** > Hi William > > Yes thanks - I am going through the docs now. > > We will have separate web servers that will be load balanced to the > application servers. > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:18 PM, William Rentfrow < > wrentf...@stratacominc.com> wrote: > >> ** >> >> Make sure you download and thoroughly read the install/config guide for >> server groups well before you get started. >> >> >> >> There are a few things in there that can trip you up the first time too, >> especially the parts about the secondary installs on the 2nd and 3rd >> servers for the applications, etc. >> >> >> >> After you've been through it a few times it's pretty straight forward. >> >> >> >> Also - are you having separate MT boxes? Or are they on the same box as >> the servers? That can add some complexity depending on how you're doing it >> etc. >> >> >> >> William Rentfrow >> >> wrentf...@stratacominc.com >> >> Office: 715-204-3061 or 701-232-5697x25 >> >> Cell: 715-498-5056 >> >> >> >> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Chetan Shinde >> *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 7:04 AM >> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> *Subject:* Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer >> >> >> >> ** >> >> Yes correct. So once you install the server in server group mode, the >> ranking form will be populated with the records for the operations that can >> be ranked and the count should be 13 in all. >> >> >> Regards, >> Chetan Shinde >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, BradRemedy wrote: >> >> ** >> >> Hi >> >> >> Ok that makes sense then - so the server group ranking is on the AR >> Server level and not the ITSM applications level. That would explain the >> need for a load balancer then - I dont know why I was under the impression >> that you setup ranking for the ITSM applications - must have read something >> incorrectly somewhere. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chetan Shinde >> wrote: >> >> ** >> >> Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein >> only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part >> of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are >> part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications >> in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM >> applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If >> I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR >> configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing >> (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the >> request to route to the particular AR server and then the database >> operation will be performed on it. >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> Regards, >> Chetan Shinde >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy wrote: >> >> ** >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server >> group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the >> server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. >> >> >> >> Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 >> remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm >> some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. >> >> >> >> We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. >> If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to >> handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the >> load balancer? >> >> >> >> For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the >> second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy
Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Hi William Yes thanks - I am going through the docs now. We will have separate web servers that will be load balanced to the application servers. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:18 PM, William Rentfrow < wrentf...@stratacominc.com> wrote: > ** > > Make sure you download and thoroughly read the install/config guide for > server groups well before you get started. > > > > There are a few things in there that can trip you up the first time too, > especially the parts about the secondary installs on the 2nd and 3rd > servers for the applications, etc. > > > > After you've been through it a few times it's pretty straight forward. > > > > Also - are you having separate MT boxes? Or are they on the same box as > the servers? That can add some complexity depending on how you're doing it > etc. > > > > William Rentfrow > > wrentf...@stratacominc.com > > Office: 715-204-3061 or 701-232-5697x25 > > Cell: 715-498-5056 > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Chetan Shinde > *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2014 7:04 AM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer > > > > ** > > Yes correct. So once you install the server in server group mode, the > ranking form will be populated with the records for the operations that can > be ranked and the count should be 13 in all. > > > Regards, > Chetan Shinde > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, BradRemedy wrote: > > ** > > Hi > > > Ok that makes sense then - so the server group ranking is on the AR Server > level and not the ITSM applications level. That would explain the need for > a load balancer then - I dont know why I was under the impression that you > setup ranking for the ITSM applications - must have read something > incorrectly somewhere. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chetan Shinde > wrote: > > ** > > Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein > only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part > of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are > part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications > in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM > applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If > I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR > configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing > (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the > request to route to the particular AR server and then the database > operation will be performed on it. > > Hope this helps. > > > Regards, > Chetan Shinde > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy wrote: > > ** > > Hi > > > > We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server > group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the > server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. > > > > Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 > remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm > some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. > > > > We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. > If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to > handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the > load balancer? > > > > For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the > second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy > server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the > second server? > > > > The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual servers > and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you take the > ranking form into consideration. > > > > Any advice would be appreciated. > > > > Cheers > > Brad > > _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_ > -- > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4794 / Virus Database: 4189/8605 - Release Date: 11/21/14 > _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"
Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Make sure you download and thoroughly read the install/config guide for server groups well before you get started. There are a few things in there that can trip you up the first time too, especially the parts about the secondary installs on the 2nd and 3rd servers for the applications, etc. After you've been through it a few times it's pretty straight forward. Also - are you having separate MT boxes? Or are they on the same box as the servers? That can add some complexity depending on how you're doing it etc. William Rentfrow wrentf...@stratacominc.com Office: 715-204-3061 or 701-232-5697x25 Cell: 715-498-5056 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Chetan Shinde Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:04 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer ** Yes correct. So once you install the server in server group mode, the ranking form will be populated with the records for the operations that can be ranked and the count should be 13 in all. Regards, Chetan Shinde On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, BradRemedy mailto:bradrem...@gmail.com>> wrote: ** Hi Ok that makes sense then - so the server group ranking is on the AR Server level and not the ITSM applications level. That would explain the need for a load balancer then - I dont know why I was under the impression that you setup ranking for the ITSM applications - must have read something incorrectly somewhere. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chetan Shinde mailto:chetanshi...@gmail.com>> wrote: ** Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the request to route to the particular AR server and then the database operation will be performed on it. Hope this helps. Regards, Chetan Shinde On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy mailto:bradrem...@gmail.com>> wrote: ** Hi We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the load balancer? For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the second server? The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual servers and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you take the ranking form into consideration. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers Brad _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_ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2014.0.4794 / Virus Database: 4189/8605 - Release Date: 11/21/14 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Yes correct. So once you install the server in server group mode, the ranking form will be populated with the records for the operations that can be ranked and the count should be 13 in all. Regards, Chetan Shinde On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM, BradRemedy wrote: > ** > Hi > > Ok that makes sense then - so the server group ranking is on the AR Server > level and not the ITSM applications level. That would explain the need for > a load balancer then - I dont know why I was under the impression that you > setup ranking for the ITSM applications - must have read something > incorrectly somewhere. > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chetan Shinde > wrote: > >> ** >> Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein >> only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part >> of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are >> part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications >> in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM >> applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If >> I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR >> configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing >> (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the >> request to route to the particular AR server and then the database >> operation will be performed on it. >> Hope this helps. >> >> Regards, >> Chetan Shinde >> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Hi >>> >>> We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server >>> group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the >>> server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. >>> >>> Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 >>> remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm >>> some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. >>> >>> We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. >>> If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to >>> handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the >>> load balancer? >>> >>> For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the >>> second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy >>> server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the >>> second server? >>> >>> The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual >>> servers and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you >>> take the ranking form into consideration. >>> >>> Any advice would be appreciated. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Brad >>> _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"
Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Hi Ok that makes sense then - so the server group ranking is on the AR Server level and not the ITSM applications level. That would explain the need for a load balancer then - I dont know why I was under the impression that you setup ranking for the ITSM applications - must have read something incorrectly somewhere. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Chetan Shinde wrote: > ** > Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein > only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part > of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are > part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications > in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM > applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If > I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR > configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing > (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the > request to route to the particular AR server and then the database > operation will be performed on it. > Hope this helps. > > Regards, > Chetan Shinde > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy wrote: > >> ** >> Hi >> >> We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server >> group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the >> server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. >> >> Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 >> remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm >> some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. >> >> We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. >> If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to >> handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the >> load balancer? >> >> For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the >> second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy >> server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the >> second server? >> >> The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual >> servers and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you >> take the ranking form into consideration. >> >> Any advice would be appreciated. >> >> Cheers >> Brad >> _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"
Re: Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Server grouping / ranking is configured at the AR server level wherein only the operations are considered and not the ITSM applications to be part of it. Operations like admin, escalation, email engine, cmdb engine etc are part of the ranking form. There is no configuration for ITSM applications in server group. Any request coming from the enduser for the ITSM applications will be considered as a normal transaction to the database. If I remember correctly in the recent versions the servergroup name in the AR configuration does not have much significance. So the type of routing (round-robin, capacity,etc) defined in the Loadbalancer will help the request to route to the particular AR server and then the database operation will be performed on it. Hope this helps. Regards, Chetan Shinde On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:12 PM, BradRemedy wrote: > ** > Hi > > We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server > group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the > server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. > > Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 > remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm > some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. > > We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. > If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to > handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the > load balancer? > > For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the > second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy > server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the > second server? > > The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual servers > and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you take the > ranking form into consideration. > > Any advice would be appreciated. > > Cheers > Brad > _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"
Remedy Server groups with Load balancer
Hi We are busy with our version 8 project and we are setting up a server group environment that will have 3 servers in it. Of the 3 servers in the server group, 1 will be a dedicated Admin server. Our plan is to have a load balancer that will direct traffic to the 2 remedy ITSM servers in the server group however we just want to confirm some things that we cannot seem to find in any of the documentation. We are a worried about the need for a load balancer with a server group. If the servers in a server group are both configured in the ranking form to handle separate ITSM applications, how will that ranking be affected by the load balancer? For example, if the one sever is configured to handle incidents and the second server is configured to handle Change Requests, how will the remedy server group handle if the load balancer sends a incident request to the second server? The load balancer is configured to point to each of the individual servers and not the server group name which doesn't make sense when you take the ranking form into consideration. Any advice would be appreciated. Cheers Brad ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Uh yeah. We run the queries for them. :) It's a once a quarter thing usually. Might have to look into the realms though. That looks interesting. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 31, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Jason Miller wrote: > > ** > 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 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 >>> 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Dean van Deventer - Business >>> Connexion >>> Sent: 31 July 2014 15:55 >>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> 3rd 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >>> [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy >>> Sent: 31 July 2014 11:38 AM >>> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> 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: >>> >>> >>> 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
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Welcome Jason. This is the easiest/basic auth. If you don't want passwords in the user.xml then you can use tomcat realms from a db source and/or a class http://www.christianschenk.org/blog/setup-your-own-tomcat-security-realm/ Not done this myself but looks pretty easy. -- Original Message -- From: "Jason Miller" To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: 31/07/2014 18:12:19 Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. ** Thanks Danny! I have been meaning to look up how to do this. I knew it was possible and have poked around a bit but just haven't got around to actually doing it. Although I would rather we are not storing a static/clear text password in a file. But... I was thinking a password for each of my team. Maybe we should just have one shared account for our team. That would serve the purpose and avoid use need to keep track of another personal password. Jason On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Danny Kellett wrote: ** Jason, Configure tomcat realms. Then you can have a popup like login just for that midtier. Its like htaccess is for Apache. http://wiki.metawerx.net/wiki/SecuringYourSiteWithContainerManagedSecurity Regards Danny -- Original Message -- From: "Jason Miller" To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: 31/07/2014 16:28:51 Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. ** Since it is just for the admins I guess you could change the http/https port daily :) On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Jason Miller wrote: 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 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 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Dean van Deventer - Business Connexion Sent: 31 July 2014 15:55 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. ** 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 3rd 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 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy Sent: 31 July 2014 11:38 AM To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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: 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 ke
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Thanks Danny! I have been meaning to look up how to do this. I knew it was possible and have poked around a bit but just haven't got around to actually doing it. Although I would rather we are not storing a static/clear text password in a file. But... I was thinking a password for each of my team. Maybe we should just have one shared account for our team. That would serve the purpose and avoid use need to keep track of another personal password. Jason On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Danny Kellett < dkell...@javasystemsolutions.com> wrote: > ** > Jason, > > Configure tomcat realms. Then you can have a popup like login just for > that midtier. Its like htaccess is for Apache. > > http://wiki.metawerx.net/wiki/SecuringYourSiteWithContainerManagedSecurity > > Regards > Danny > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Jason Miller" > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Sent: 31/07/2014 16:28:51 > Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. > > > ** > Since it is just for the admins I guess you could change the http/https > port daily :) > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Jason Miller > wrote: > >> 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 >> 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 < >>> p.romain.arsl...@parsolutions.co.uk> 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of *Dean >>> van Deventer - Business Connexion >>> *Sent:* 31 July 2014 15:55 >>> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> *Subject:* Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> <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 3rd 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of * >>> BradRemedy >>> *Sent:* 31 July 2014 11:38 AM >>> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >>> *Subject:* Server Groups - Your thoughts please. >>> >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> Firstly, thanks for any help you guys can offer. >>> >>> >>
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Jason, Configure tomcat realms. Then you can have a popup like login just for that midtier. Its like htaccess is for Apache. http://wiki.metawerx.net/wiki/SecuringYourSiteWithContainerManagedSecurity Regards Danny -- Original Message -- From: "Jason Miller" To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: 31/07/2014 16:28:51 Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. ** Since it is just for the admins I guess you could change the http/https port daily :) On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Jason Miller wrote: 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 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 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Dean van Deventer - Business Connexion Sent: 31 July 2014 15:55 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. ** 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 3rd 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 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy Sent: 31 July 2014 11:38 AM To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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: 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_ _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"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Since it is just for the admins I guess you could change the http/https port daily :) On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Jason Miller wrote: > 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 > 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 < >> p.romain.arsl...@parsolutions.co.uk> 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of *Dean >> van Deventer - Business Connexion >> *Sent:* 31 July 2014 15:55 >> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> *Subject:* Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. >> >> >> >> ** >> >> <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 >> 3rd 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >> mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of * >> BradRemedy >> *Sent:* 31 July 2014 11:38 AM >> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> *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"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
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 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 < > p.romain.arsl...@parsolutions.co.uk> 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of *Dean van > Deventer - Business Connexion > *Sent:* 31 July 2014 15:55 > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. > > > > ** > > <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 > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] *On Behalf Of * > BradRemedy > *Sent:* 31 July 2014 11:38 AM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *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"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
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 > 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:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Dean van Deventer - Business > Connexion > Sent: 31 July 2014 15:55 > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please. > > ** > > > > > 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 3rd > 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 > > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy > Sent: 31 July 2014 11:38 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > 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: > > > 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Hi Brad, Just to add some capacity management thoughts: For argument sake, lets say each user facing ARS can comfortably process 400 concurrent users (BMC say more but lets not start that one again). Then this means you have a total capacity of 800 concurrent users (before the graph starts to drop off). Which is great but be aware that if you have a projected concurrent user base of more than 400 e.g. 600, then if one ARS fails, your single instance is in trouble. People often make the mistake of just having two ARS facing servers for redundancy and not taking into account capacity management. Escalation/mail server - From my experience, people forget that escalations tend to make the largest and most *table scan* searches (not saying the filters/queries are not using indexes, but the fact they ask for more than 70% of the data). So thats big hits on memory and CPU. Especially when they process things like SLM measurements every minute etc. So therefore these servers will definable get busier over time (more time == more data) but more importantly, those functions are business critical and your design has them as a single point of failure. Therefore in my opinion, in answer to your questions, yes include it in the server group so it can fail them to the user facing servers. Yes it will have a negative impact in the event of a failure but you can't do without those functions. With regards to turning off the admin server. This is not an option if you join the single server to the server group. If you checked *that checkbox* while in the server group, it will complain and say something about it being handled by the server ranking/group. However you can have a server group with just one server. The rankings form will just have that one entry with all the functions assigned to it. Just my 2 pence worth :) Kind regards Danny -- Original Message -- From: "BradRemedy" To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: 31/07/2014 10:38:02 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: 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Hello Brad, If you are 100% sure that email engine and escalation are the only operation be handled by that particular server box then you do not need ITSM/SRM installed on it, but you will have to make sure your load-balancer ( in server group environment) shouldn’t send end user requests to this server. I would say: 2 user facing servers 1 admin/escalation/email engine server (non-user facing) 1 reporting server (non-user facing) Should work good for your business need. HTH. Best Regards, Kiran From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy Sent: 31 July 2014 15:08 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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: [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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Server Groups - Your thoughts please.
Brad, Your design looks pretty standard. I usually setup server groups: 2 for users 1 for reporting 1 for admin Your server ranking is very important - keeps the functions specific to a server and provides redundancy. Thank you, Sandra Hennigan Remedy Developer From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of BradRemedy Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:38 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 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 removed by sender. 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_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
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 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: configure Server Groups
https://communities.bmc.com/welcome If you do not have a BMC Support account you can use the search capability at the Communities Web site to get details that will help. -Original Message- From: mahmoud mahdy To: arslist Sent: Sun, Feb 2, 2014 11:15 am Subject: configure Server Groups ** Dears, please help as I need the best configuration to restructure my server groups, I have 2 application servers and 2 web servers and physical load balancer. please share any documents that illustrate how to configure server groups if exist. Thanks _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"
configure Server Groups
Dears, please help as I need the best configuration to restructure my server groups, I have 2 application servers and 2 web servers and physical load balancer. please share any documents that illustrate how to configure server groups if exist. Thanks ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
Actually this exactly why I asked the question, folks want to use powerscripting and other commands to do work on exchange server farms and othe stuff, so I would need to ensure the commands only run on the windows server and not on Linux Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2013, at 17:20, patchsk wrote: > https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars8000/Server+groups+overview > > There are two notes saying > Servers with in a server group need not have the same OS but workflow > commands for invoking programs should be compatible with all OS. > That means you need to start writing workflow run if ($OS$ = "Linux" ) etc.. > The other one saying the ARSystem and Applications in all servers should be > of same version and patch. > > There might be some issues with FTS because you are mixing up unix and > windows filesystems to store index files. > > Interested to see how seamless it would work when you mix OS in Server Group > in reality. > > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
https://docs.bmc.com/docs/display/public/ars8000/Server+groups+overview There are two notes saying Servers with in a server group need not have the same OS but workflow commands for invoking programs should be compatible with all OS. That means you need to start writing workflow run if ($OS$ = "Linux" ) etc.. The other one saying the ARSystem and Applications in all servers should be of same version and patch. There might be some issues with FTS because you are mixing up unix and windows filesystems to store index files. Interested to see how seamless it would work when you mix OS in Server Group in reality. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
A couple of suggestions related to your architecture, but not necessarily your question: If you are adding the additional server as part of your server group to handle admin, recon, interfaces, etc. (ie. a lot of heavy liftingi), and if you have a load-balancer in front of these remedy servers, I would suggest that the load balancer does not route client traffic to this additional server. That way, you don't get clients ending up on your additional server and complaining about response times. Putting it in as part of the server group allows it to fail over in the event of an issue, which is nice. You can also install a local midtier on the additional server so that you can connect to it via the mid-tier directly, instead of through the load balancer. It also allows you to have server settings that do not necessarily correspond to other servers in your server group (like: Max Entries via GetList, Allow unqualified queries, etc...) which the Admins and/or interfaces would like. HTH. Terry _ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: May-15-13 1:48 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly ** That is the whole reason for having server ranking operations, that can be disabled on some and enabled on some so each server has specific 'roles' for the lack of a better word. Maybe 'tasks' is a better word. Talking about your specific need - to dedicate one of the two servers for integrations, I wish it was possible to have server operations for web services specifically dedicated to a server or group of servers. That way I could assign a higher process timeout to that one or that group of servers. Cheers Joe _ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of patrick zandi Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:02 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly ** sounds good.. just asking.. for thoughts.. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Longwing, Lj wrote: ** Patrick, I have never heard of a requirement that all nodes of a server group must be on the same architecture. Due to the fact that the server group is just signaling communication between the servers, I don't see it as a problem. The only time you would come against issues would be if your DB was something not supported by all platforms, like SQL Server for example, but as long as all nodes can connect to the DB, I can't see how it would be an issue. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, patrick zandi wrote: ** Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the docs not to do. which I did not notice. Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and add to group. The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are linux. -- Patrick Zandi _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"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
That is the whole reason for having server ranking operations, that can be disabled on some and enabled on some so each server has specific 'roles' for the lack of a better word. Maybe 'tasks' is a better word. Talking about your specific need - to dedicate one of the two servers for integrations, I wish it was possible to have server operations for web services specifically dedicated to a server or group of servers. That way I could assign a higher process timeout to that one or that group of servers. Cheers Joe _ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of patrick zandi Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:02 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly ** sounds good.. just asking.. for thoughts.. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Longwing, Lj wrote: ** Patrick, I have never heard of a requirement that all nodes of a server group must be on the same architecture. Due to the fact that the server group is just signaling communication between the servers, I don't see it as a problem. The only time you would come against issues would be if your DB was something not supported by all platforms, like SQL Server for example, but as long as all nodes can connect to the DB, I can't see how it would be an issue. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, patrick zandi wrote: ** Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the docs not to do. which I did not notice. Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and add to group. The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are linux. -- Patrick Zandi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
sounds good.. just asking.. for thoughts.. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Longwing, Lj wrote: > ** > Patrick, > I have never heard of a requirement that all nodes of a server group must > be on the same architecture. Due to the fact that the server group is just > signaling communication between the servers, I don't see it as a problem. > The only time you would come against issues would be if your DB was > something not supported by all platforms, like SQL Server for example, but > as long as all nodes can connect to the DB, I can't see how it would be an > issue. > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, patrick zandi wrote: > >> ** >> Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and >> Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the >> docs not to do. which I did not notice. >> >> Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and >> add to group. >> The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and >> admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. >> >> Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange >> server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are >> linux. >> >> -- >> Patrick Zandi >> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ > > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ -- Patrick Zandi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
Patrick, I have never heard of a requirement that all nodes of a server group must be on the same architecture. Due to the fact that the server group is just signaling communication between the servers, I don't see it as a problem. The only time you would come against issues would be if your DB was something not supported by all platforms, like SQL Server for example, but as long as all nodes can connect to the DB, I can't see how it would be an issue. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, patrick zandi wrote: > ** > Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and > Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the > docs not to do. which I did not notice. > > Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and add > to group. > The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and > admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. > > Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange > server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are > linux. > > -- > Patrick Zandi > _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"
ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly
Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the docs not to do. which I did not notice. Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and add to group. The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are linux. -- Patrick Zandi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: Reg. AI support for Server Groups
AI 7.6.04 is not supported in Server Group. AI 8.x is supported in Server Group. Thanks Mahesh On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:27 AM, NeoPhoenix wrote: > Hi, > > As we all know that AIE is being replaced by a more powerful tool called > AI. > > What is the dependency of AI over server grouping? > > What I mean to say is does Server grouping affects the behaviour of AI? > > Regards, > Neo > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "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"
Re: Reg. AI support for Server Groups
I am not sure who you are "NEO" but it shouldn't matter for basic transformations since Atrium Integrator uses the same Remedy API as the client or AO or another integration point. Regards, Roney Samuel Varghese. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:27 AM, NeoPhoenix wrote: > Hi, > > As we all know that AIE is being replaced by a more powerful tool called AI. > > What is the dependency of AI over server grouping? > > What I mean to say is does Server grouping affects the behaviour of AI? > > Regards, > Neo > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > "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"
Reg. AI support for Server Groups
Hi, As we all know that AIE is being replaced by a more powerful tool called AI. What is the dependency of AI over server grouping? What I mean to say is does Server grouping affects the behaviour of AI? Regards, Neo ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Karthik, Very elegant. I guess it sums up my experiences in general. NLB will work just fine if you don't have issues with ANY node and you simply want to balance between existing nodes. As long as something goes wrong on a node, you have no ability to automatically pull it out of the balance unless the service is stopped, or the machine is offline. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Karthik Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups ** Hi, I just implemented NLB for server groups. NLB was implemented for Mid-tiers and also for App Server group. As someone has mentioned before, its does not provide all the different modes that other hardware load balancers do. only option is for load balancing based on the server load. However, there are some problems with NLB. For Ex: If Mid Tier 1 is down but the server hosting it still provides a heartbeat, clients are still sent to it. This poses a problem when it comes to balancing load to mid tier servers. But for app servers this can be handled using OOB provided configuration, "Enable lifespan" on mid tier config page. By enabling this, mid-tiers will understand if an app server is down and the requests will not be sent to the app servers. however, if the app servers have performance problems and are services are still up, requests will still be sent to them. Only way to mitigate the negative scenarios described above would be to stop a particular host from the NLB manager, while you are debugging the problem with the mid-tier being down/app server having performance issues. that said, below are some inportant configs you need to keep in mind: 1- load balancer should be configured in Multi cast mode if its NLB. Network guys should understand this. 2 - affinity should be set to None. 3 - load balancer name should be FQDN I.e. fully qualified domain name. Regarding point 2 above: this is applicable for only application load balancer. For mid tier load balancer(if you are planning to have one in place) the affinity parameter should be set to single. Sometimes, NLB is configured in unicast mode. in this case, there is a need to add an additional network adapter and this causes license issues as in unicast mode, the NLB makes the mac address of all the NLB hosts the same. to mitigate this, please follow the attached link to not allow the mac address to be the same for all the hosts: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742455.aspx <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742455.aspx> hope this helps. My personal and also per the article found in above link, its good to go for multi-cast mode. Regards, Karthik On 10 September 2012 22:49, Mauricio M. wrote: ** Hello, thank you, what would be some of those specific configurations or capabilities? -Mauricio 2012/9/10 Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC Mauricio, I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of proper load balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real close at it either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups ** Hello, Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load balancing with AR System 7.6.04? There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent Thank you in advance, Mauricio _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" _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"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Completely agree with you! Regards, Karthik On 10 September 2012 23:27, Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC wrote: > Well...one thing that I have always looked for in a load balancing is a > 'smart' capability to tell you that something is functional. I have found > most of the balancers on the market to not allow what I consider smart > balancing. Most will do a ping, open a port, check a URL, that sort of > thing, but in a Remedy world just because ARServer allows you to open the > port it is on, doesn't mean that the Remedy is functional. Just because > the Mid-Tier login page opens doesn't mean that it's functional. I have > found that some LB suites have various scripting capabilities, but in > general I have found creating API based monitoring tools that provide 'port > opening' capabilities to be a 'full' solution. The general capabilities > that I'm referring to are session affinity (NLB has this apparently). The > rest are probes, the ability to probe your intended subject to see if the > capabilities you are looking for are functional. As previously discussed, > most of these probes are 'dumb', but they are smarter than nothing. NLB > doesn't seem to have any probe capability, the simple 'am I on' is enough > to route traffic to the node. I personally think that it's important to > probe deeply into the application to know that it's not only on, but > functional before routing traffic, and NLB doesn't meet this probing > requirement. > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:20 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups > > ** Hello, > > thank you, what would be some of those specific configurations or > capabilities? > > -Mauricio > > > 2012/9/10 Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC > > > Mauricio, > I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of > proper load balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real > close at it either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups > > ** Hello, > > > Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB > for load balancing with AR System 7.6.04? > > There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent > > Thank you in advance, > > Mauricio > > _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" > > > > _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"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Well...one thing that I have always looked for in a load balancing is a 'smart' capability to tell you that something is functional. I have found most of the balancers on the market to not allow what I consider smart balancing. Most will do a ping, open a port, check a URL, that sort of thing, but in a Remedy world just because ARServer allows you to open the port it is on, doesn't mean that the Remedy is functional. Just because the Mid-Tier login page opens doesn't mean that it's functional. I have found that some LB suites have various scripting capabilities, but in general I have found creating API based monitoring tools that provide 'port opening' capabilities to be a 'full' solution. The general capabilities that I'm referring to are session affinity (NLB has this apparently). The rest are probes, the ability to probe your intended subject to see if the capabilities you are looking for are functional. As previously discussed, most of these probes are 'dumb', but they are smarter than nothing. NLB doesn't seem to have any probe capability, the simple 'am I on' is enough to route traffic to the node. I personally think that it's important to probe deeply into the application to know that it's not only on, but functional before routing traffic, and NLB doesn't meet this probing requirement. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:20 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups ** Hello, thank you, what would be some of those specific configurations or capabilities? -Mauricio 2012/9/10 Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC Mauricio, I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of proper load balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real close at it either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups ** Hello, Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load balancing with AR System 7.6.04? There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent Thank you in advance, Mauricio _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" _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"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Hi, I just implemented NLB for server groups. NLB was implemented for Mid-tiers and also for App Server group. As someone has mentioned before, its does not provide all the different modes that other hardware load balancers do. only option is for load balancing based on the server load. However, there are some problems with NLB. For Ex: If Mid Tier 1 is down but the server hosting it still provides a heartbeat, clients are still sent to it. This poses a problem when it comes to balancing load to mid tier servers. But for app servers this can be handled using OOB provided configuration, "Enable lifespan" on mid tier config page. By enabling this, mid-tiers will understand if an app server is down and the requests will not be sent to the app servers. however, if the app servers have performance problems and are services are still up, requests will still be sent to them. Only way to mitigate the negative scenarios described above would be to stop a particular host from the NLB manager, while you are debugging the problem with the mid-tier being down/app server having performance issues. that said, below are some inportant configs you need to keep in mind: 1- load balancer should be configured in Multi cast mode if its NLB. Network guys should understand this. 2 - affinity should be set to None. 3 - load balancer name should be FQDN I.e. fully qualified domain name. Regarding point 2 above: this is applicable for only application load balancer. For mid tier load balancer(if you are planning to have one in place) the affinity parameter should be set to single. Sometimes, NLB is configured in unicast mode. in this case, there is a need to add an additional network adapter and this causes license issues as in unicast mode, the NLB makes the mac address of all the NLB hosts the same. to mitigate this, please follow the attached link to not allow the mac address to be the same for all the hosts: *http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742455.aspx * hope this helps. My personal and also per the article found in above link, its good to go for multi-cast mode. Regards, Karthik On 10 September 2012 22:49, Mauricio M. wrote: > ** Hello, > > thank you, what would be some of those specific configurations or > capabilities? > > -Mauricio > > 2012/9/10 Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC > > Mauricio, >> I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of proper >> load balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real close >> at it either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >> arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. >> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM >> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups >> >> ** Hello, >> >> Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load >> balancing with AR System 7.6.04? >> >> There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent >> >> Thank you in advance, >> >> Mauricio >> _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" >> > > _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"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Hello, thank you, what would be some of those specific configurations or capabilities? -Mauricio 2012/9/10 Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC > Mauricio, > I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of proper load > balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real close at it > either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups > > ** Hello, > > Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load > balancing with AR System 7.6.04? > > There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent > > Thank you in advance, > > Mauricio > _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"
Re: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Mauricio, I recently re-looked at MS NLB and found it to be 'lacking' of proper load balancing configuration capabilities, but I haven't looked real close at it either. I much prefer an independent LB tool. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:06 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups ** Hello, Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load balancing with AR System 7.6.04? There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent Thank you in advance, Mauricio _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"
MS Network Load Balancing (NLB) with AR Server Groups
Hello, Does anyone have any experience or feedback using Microsoft NLB for load balancing with AR System 7.6.04? There are a few old posts about NLB but nothing recent Thank you in advance, Mauricio ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read
Mauricio, When we moved to Server Groups early last year I ended up writing a small java app.could easily be written in Perl, or any other API language that you like..but it is quite simple.it logs into both servers, getting a list of the connected users. It then bounces the two list against each other to get a list of unique user id's and reports total on 1, total on 2, total unique. I also added breaking it up by license type (for reporting reasons).. It's a total of about 60 lines of code.was the best way I could get that 'total' you are looking for. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read ** Hello people, One question about License Review option (Manage User License form), if you attempt to read the current server/application user count, if you have two or more arservers sharing the user load in a server group through a load balancer, how would you read and understand the user count? If I connect directly to server A and get 100 current server users and then connect directly to server B and get 50 current server users, it means there are a total of 150 users connected to the system at the moment? Thanks for the clarification Mauricio _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"
Re: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read
Your interpretation is correct. License review screen shows users connected to that specific server even if it is part of a servergroup. So basically you add users across all servers, that gives you the count of total users connected to your arsystem. However there is a possibility that some users could connect concurrently to multiple arservers at the same time, in that case they show up in each server, so there is a slight chance of counting same user more than once. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read
If you are referring to the defect in the License Usage Report when running in server groups, that has been corrected. Please see the following technical bulletin: 10-Nov-2011 Describes an issue in the BMC IT Service Management Suite which prevents the license usage report from displaying the usage of floating licenses over a specified period of time. http://documents.bmc.com/supportu/documents/11/66/221166/221166.pdf Other than that, I'm not aware of any current defects that keep the License Usage report from properly reporting the high-water-mark for floating license usage - even within server groups. -David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform 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 Andrew C Goodall Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:31 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read ** You can't very easily - there is a bug in BMCs license tracking across an AR server group environment - and at least I can't be bothered to spend the time with support to try and get them to fix it. Bascially, the way I do it is to capture snapshot of active users during busiest part of online day - paste into excel spreadsheet one worksheet per server and then paste all users from those individual counts into one worksheet and filter duplicate records so you end up with a list of unique online users. Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com <http://www.jcp.com/> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read ** Hello people, One question about License Review option (Manage User License form), if you attempt to read the current server/application user count, if you have two or more arservers sharing the user load in a server group through a load balancer, how would you read and understand the user count? If I connect directly to server A and get 100 current server users and then connect directly to server B and get 50 current server users, it means there are a total of 150 users connected to the system at the moment? Thanks for the clarification Mauricio _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _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"
Re: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read
You can't very easily - there is a bug in BMCs license tracking across an AR server group environment - and at least I can't be bothered to spend the time with support to try and get them to fix it. Bascially, the way I do it is to capture snapshot of active users during busiest part of online day - paste into excel spreadsheet one worksheet per server and then paste all users from those individual counts into one worksheet and filter duplicate records so you end up with a list of unique online users. Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com <http://www.jcp.com/> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mauricio M. Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:24 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read ** Hello people, One question about License Review option (Manage User License form), if you attempt to read the current server/application user count, if you have two or more arservers sharing the user load in a server group through a load balancer, how would you read and understand the user count? If I connect directly to server A and get 100 current server users and then connect directly to server B and get 50 current server users, it means there are a total of 150 users connected to the system at the moment? Thanks for the clarification Mauricio _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination,distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are notthe intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
License Review form in server groups -Current Users how to read
Hello people, One question about License Review option (Manage User License form), if you attempt to read the current server/application user count, if you have two or more arservers sharing the user load in a server group through a load balancer, how would you read and understand the user count? If I connect directly to server A and get 100 current server users and then connect directly to server B and get 50 current server users, it means there are a total of 150 users connected to the system at the moment? Thanks for the clarification Mauricio ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
WWRUG10 - Technical Session Sneak Peek #5 - What's New in ARSystem, ITSM and Server Groups: Beyond the Obvious
Ok, for those of you who were quietly waiting to the What's New sessions, here it is plus a session on Server Groups which is becoming more prolific. Register here http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?eventid=837003 Topic "What's New in AR System 7.6.03" Abstract AR System 7.6.03 is a minor update to the AR System product line, but includes some major new features. Come listen to the lead product manager, David J. Easter, review the technical and business benefits of this new version of AR System. Synopsis Among the areas covered by new features are: - Reporting: An embedded engine now powers reporting for the web client - Custom Development: Protect customizations or extensions across upgrades - Usability: A new home page and UI improvements, enhancing user experience and efficiency - Installation: Assistive installers help ensure that installations complete without error - 64-bit: New level of support for Windows OS, Java Virtual Machines and application servers - Developer assistance: Search, Analysis, Workflow viewer and Documentation tools - Search: An embedded search engine now powers FTS and RKM A question and answer period will also be included. Topic What is new in ITSM7.6.03 Abstract What is new in ITSM7.6.03 Synopsis What is new in ITSM7.6.03 (Guess you will just have to come and see what's new!) Topic Server Group: Beyond the Obvious Abstract The BMC Installation documents cover how to install your server group, but then what? Unless you've done it before, spent a lot of time with the BMC Support or are just really lucky you will soon run in to tuning or issues Synopsis In this session you will get a quick overview of Server Group install in 7.x then learn about the additional settings and configuration you should do to optimize your Remedy server group. Lessons learned will be shared involving fail over, life with a load balancer, server ranking, configuration files, server identity issues, etc. See you in October! Phil Bautista, WWRUG10 Advisory Board 512-731-0304 http://www.linkedin.com/in/philbautista http://www.wwrug.org/wwrug10/contact_phil.html ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups - is load balancer required?
Thanks Carey. BMC finally responded to my query and they confirmed that a load balancer is *not* required in order to set up a Server Group. However, they did explain that without the load balancer the clients would have to connect to the individual server names rather than the group name (what I expected). Now we need to figure out why we are getting plugin server timeout errors. Regards, Chuck On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Carey Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Chuck, > > My understanding is that it is not required. > > Ref: 2007.09.13.WhitePaper-HardwareLoadBalancer-With-v7.1.00.84092.pdf > " > AR System includes the capability for automatic fail-over of special > operations and > the sharing of floating licenses among the servers. Server groups are > independent > of load balancing, but the concepts are complementary. > " > > Try quoting that BMC whitepaper back to tech Support and see how fast > they change their minds about what is required and what is not. > > Plugin servers not starting could be due to one missing shared > lib/dll, or an incorrect order of loading the plugins, or any number > of other things. (And it likely has nothing to do with the Server > Group functionality.) > > You might also want to read through Configuring-710.pdf section > "Running servers as part of a group" (pages 155-168). There are > details in there about plugin server config that may apply to your > case. (Specifically "Specifying plug-in server aliases (Step 4e)") > > Good luck. > > -- > Carey Matthew Black > Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) > ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) > > Love, then teach > Solution = People + Process + Tools > Fast, Accurate, Cheap Pick two. > > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Charles Baldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ** > > Hello listers, > > We have installed ARS 7.1 with ITSM 7.0.3. We are building the QA and > Prod > > environments with multiple ARServers and multiple Mid-Tiers. We > currently > > have a load balancer in front of the Mid Tier servers but do not have one > > between the Mid Tier and ARServers. We have been having trouble > configuring > > the ARServers into a server group (plugin server not starting). The > > specific question is: is a load balancer required in front of the > ARServers > > in order to configure them into a server group? The BMC docs assume you > > have one but do not state that you *must* have one. > > > > BMC has not been very helpful with this so far. When posed with that > direct > > question, they simply refer to the configuration doc rather than > answering > > the question. > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > Regards, > > Chuck Baldi > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups - is load balancer required?
Chuck, My understanding is that it is not required. Ref: 2007.09.13.WhitePaper-HardwareLoadBalancer-With-v7.1.00.84092.pdf " AR System includes the capability for automatic fail-over of special operations and the sharing of floating licenses among the servers. Server groups are independent of load balancing, but the concepts are complementary. " Try quoting that BMC whitepaper back to tech Support and see how fast they change their minds about what is required and what is not. Plugin servers not starting could be due to one missing shared lib/dll, or an incorrect order of loading the plugins, or any number of other things. (And it likely has nothing to do with the Server Group functionality.) You might also want to read through Configuring-710.pdf section "Running servers as part of a group" (pages 155-168). There are details in there about plugin server config that may apply to your case. (Specifically "Specifying plug-in server aliases (Step 4e)") Good luck. -- Carey Matthew Black Remedy Skilled Professional (RSP) ARS = Action Request System(Remedy) Love, then teach Solution = People + Process + Tools Fast, Accurate, Cheap Pick two. On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Charles Baldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > Hello listers, > We have installed ARS 7.1 with ITSM 7.0.3. We are building the QA and Prod > environments with multiple ARServers and multiple Mid-Tiers. We currently > have a load balancer in front of the Mid Tier servers but do not have one > between the Mid Tier and ARServers. We have been having trouble configuring > the ARServers into a server group (plugin server not starting). The > specific question is: is a load balancer required in front of the ARServers > in order to configure them into a server group? The BMC docs assume you > have one but do not state that you *must* have one. > > BMC has not been very helpful with this so far. When posed with that direct > question, they simply refer to the configuration doc rather than answering > the question. > > Thanks for any help. > > Regards, > Chuck Baldi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups - is load balancer required?
Hey Chuck, How are you.. Been a while since talking to you last.. Still with Windward? I had a problem with the Plugin server not starting as well recently that was resolved by configuring threads for the same.. I had the line Plugin-Filter-API-Threads: 1 15 in the ar.cfg file (ar.conf if you are on UNIX). You can choose an appropriate number of min and max threads to suite your needs.. Restart the AR Server after you have that line in.. If you have any specific problems with setting up the AR Servers behind a load balancer, shoot me an email, I have done it a few times and should be able to help you out.. Cheers Joe - Original Message From: Charles Baldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 1:58:20 PM Subject: Server Groups - is load balancer required? ** Hello listers, We have installed ARS 7.1 with ITSM 7.0.3. We are building the QA and Prod environments with multiple ARServers and multiple Mid-Tiers. We currently have a load balancer in front of the Mid Tier servers but do not have one between the Mid Tier and ARServers. We have been having trouble configuring the ARServers into a server group (plugin server not starting). The specific question is: is a load balancer required in front of the ARServers in order to configure them into a server group? The BMC docs assume you have one but do not state that you *must* have one. BMC has not been very helpful with this so far. When posed with that direct question, they simply refer to the configuration doc rather than answering the question. Thanks for any help. Regards, Chuck Baldi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Server Groups - is load balancer required?
Hello listers, We have installed ARS 7.1 with ITSM 7.0.3. We are building the QA and Prod environments with multiple ARServers and multiple Mid-Tiers. We currently have a load balancer in front of the Mid Tier servers but do not have one between the Mid Tier and ARServers. We have been having trouble configuring the ARServers into a server group (plugin server not starting). The specific question is: is a load balancer required in front of the ARServers in order to configure them into a server group? The BMC docs assume you have one but do not state that you *must* have one. BMC has not been very helpful with this so far. When posed with that direct question, they simply refer to the configuration doc rather than answering the question. Thanks for any help. Regards, Chuck Baldi ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups
Joe/Mark, did your testing show any performance increase as a result of this change? My tests seem to indicate the opposite, though not to any substantial degree. Rick On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Rick Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Mark. The count is set per server, then there's a check box on > each form to enable it to use that server number. > > We'll have to evaluate whether having Entry IDs/Create Dates out of sync is > worth the performance increase. I suspect that it will be, but we may still > have to check our apps and users to ensure no one gets hosed in the > trade-off. > > Rick > > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Walters, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> When this setting is enabled the server will increment the nextid count in >> the arschema table for the form by the configured number. Once the server >> has allocated all the ids the next block is fetched. If the server is >> terminated for any reason, intentionally or otherwise, any unused ids will >> be discarded and there will be a gap in the request id sequence in the form. >> If you're using a server group and each server is using the feature there >> is increased potential for these gaps to occur. Each server is independant >> in the use of this feature - you could have servers using different values >> for the nextid block or a mix of servers with the setting enabled and >> disabled. The next id count can also be set per form if I recall correctly >> (don't have the docs handy). >> >> The occurrence of gaps in the request id sequence has always been a >> possibility - consider the case of a heavily used form with mutliple users >> running submits. If the workflow that creates a new record has conditions >> that may cause the submit to be cancelled the transaction would be backed >> out and, if subsequent submits had already started, this would result in a >> gap. >> >> Mark >> >> ____ >> >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Rick >> Cook >> Sent: Fri 09/05/2008 17:32 >> To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG >> Subject: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups >> >> >> ** We are upgrading to AR System 7.1 (no ITSM - all custom apps), and are >> looking at the potential performance gains of using the pre-allocated nextId >> blocks. >> >> I attended the BUW session where they talked about the optimal setting >> being about 100 for heavily used forms, but I got to thinking "What would >> happen in a fail-over situation? How do the servers play together with >> those pre-allocated blocks?" My thought was that at worst, the allocated >> but as yet unused portion of the block would be discarded, and a new one >> would be spawned on the new primary server, leaving ID gaps of between 1 and >> 99. That, we could live with. >> >> While digging through the 7.1 docs, I read this little gem in the O&T, >> which seems to sort of obliquely reinforce my opinion: >> >> The use of this configuration setting could result in unpredictably large >> NextID sequence gaps. The likelihood of this occurring increases with the >> use of multiple servers that share a database. The AR System server will not >> malfunction due to this gap and should not be considered a defect. >> >> Has someone been through this exercise who could offer some insight into >> whether there might be other issues to be aware of? Is this a setting that >> could be different for different servers in a group (not that I know why one >> WOULD, but...)? >> >> Also, I found it a bit disturbing that the documentation said to adjust >> this value in the ar.conf file when there is a setting in the Administration >> form for it (which the doc does not mention). They probably just didn't >> update that from 7.0.1, but it does tend to make one wonder about the >> completeness of the rest of the information. >> >> Rick >> __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" >> html___ >> >> >> ___ >> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org >> Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" >> > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups
Thanks, Mark. The count is set per server, then there's a check box on each form to enable it to use that server number. We'll have to evaluate whether having Entry IDs/Create Dates out of sync is worth the performance increase. I suspect that it will be, but we may still have to check our apps and users to ensure no one gets hosed in the trade-off. Rick On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Walters, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When this setting is enabled the server will increment the nextid count in > the arschema table for the form by the configured number. Once the server > has allocated all the ids the next block is fetched. If the server is > terminated for any reason, intentionally or otherwise, any unused ids will > be discarded and there will be a gap in the request id sequence in the form. > If you're using a server group and each server is using the feature there > is increased potential for these gaps to occur. Each server is independant > in the use of this feature - you could have servers using different values > for the nextid block or a mix of servers with the setting enabled and > disabled. The next id count can also be set per form if I recall correctly > (don't have the docs handy). > > The occurrence of gaps in the request id sequence has always been a > possibility - consider the case of a heavily used form with mutliple users > running submits. If the workflow that creates a new record has conditions > that may cause the submit to be cancelled the transaction would be backed > out and, if subsequent submits had already started, this would result in a > gap. > > Mark > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Rick Cook > Sent: Fri 09/05/2008 17:32 > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups > > > ** We are upgrading to AR System 7.1 (no ITSM - all custom apps), and are > looking at the potential performance gains of using the pre-allocated nextId > blocks. > > I attended the BUW session where they talked about the optimal setting > being about 100 for heavily used forms, but I got to thinking "What would > happen in a fail-over situation? How do the servers play together with > those pre-allocated blocks?" My thought was that at worst, the allocated > but as yet unused portion of the block would be discarded, and a new one > would be spawned on the new primary server, leaving ID gaps of between 1 and > 99. That, we could live with. > > While digging through the 7.1 docs, I read this little gem in the O&T, > which seems to sort of obliquely reinforce my opinion: > > The use of this configuration setting could result in unpredictably large > NextID sequence gaps. The likelihood of this occurring increases with the > use of multiple servers that share a database. The AR System server will not > malfunction due to this gap and should not be considered a defect. > > Has someone been through this exercise who could offer some insight into > whether there might be other issues to be aware of? Is this a setting that > could be different for different servers in a group (not that I know why one > WOULD, but...)? > > Also, I found it a bit disturbing that the documentation said to adjust > this value in the ar.conf file when there is a setting in the Administration > form for it (which the doc does not mention). They probably just didn't > update that from 7.0.1, but it does tend to make one wonder about the > completeness of the rest of the information. > > Rick > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups
When this setting is enabled the server will increment the nextid count in the arschema table for the form by the configured number. Once the server has allocated all the ids the next block is fetched. If the server is terminated for any reason, intentionally or otherwise, any unused ids will be discarded and there will be a gap in the request id sequence in the form. If you're using a server group and each server is using the feature there is increased potential for these gaps to occur. Each server is independant in the use of this feature - you could have servers using different values for the nextid block or a mix of servers with the setting enabled and disabled. The next id count can also be set per form if I recall correctly (don't have the docs handy). The occurrence of gaps in the request id sequence has always been a possibility - consider the case of a heavily used form with mutliple users running submits. If the workflow that creates a new record has conditions that may cause the submit to be cancelled the transaction would be backed out and, if subsequent submits had already started, this would result in a gap. Mark From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Rick Cook Sent: Fri 09/05/2008 17:32 To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups ** We are upgrading to AR System 7.1 (no ITSM - all custom apps), and are looking at the potential performance gains of using the pre-allocated nextId blocks. I attended the BUW session where they talked about the optimal setting being about 100 for heavily used forms, but I got to thinking "What would happen in a fail-over situation? How do the servers play together with those pre-allocated blocks?" My thought was that at worst, the allocated but as yet unused portion of the block would be discarded, and a new one would be spawned on the new primary server, leaving ID gaps of between 1 and 99. That, we could live with. While digging through the 7.1 docs, I read this little gem in the O&T, which seems to sort of obliquely reinforce my opinion: The use of this configuration setting could result in unpredictably large NextID sequence gaps. The likelihood of this occurring increases with the use of multiple servers that share a database. The AR System server will not malfunction due to this gap and should not be considered a defect. Has someone been through this exercise who could offer some insight into whether there might be other issues to be aware of? Is this a setting that could be different for different servers in a group (not that I know why one WOULD, but...)? Also, I found it a bit disturbing that the documentation said to adjust this value in the ar.conf file when there is a setting in the Administration form for it (which the doc does not mention). They probably just didn't update that from 7.0.1, but it does tend to make one wonder about the completeness of the rest of the information. Rick __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups
What I do not like so much about setting these next block id's is that the sort order of the create date is often not in sync with the sort order of the Request ID's. But then again I guess if I really want that benefit of performance I have to live with that.. Might be a good idea to come to think of it to use it at the time of DSL import (during the install of ITSM apps) and then remove it after that is done.. Joe -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rick Cook Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:32 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Next ID Blocks in Server Groups ** We are upgrading to AR System 7.1 (no ITSM - all custom apps), and are looking at the potential performance gains of using the pre-allocated nextId blocks. I attended the BUW session where they talked about the optimal setting being about 100 for heavily used forms, but I got to thinking "What would happen in a fail-over situation? How do the servers play together with those pre-allocated blocks?" My thought was that at worst, the allocated but as yet unused portion of the block would be discarded, and a new one would be spawned on the new primary server, leaving ID gaps of between 1 and 99. That, we could live with. While digging through the 7.1 docs, I read this little gem in the O&T, which seems to sort of obliquely reinforce my opinion: The use of this configuration setting could result in unpredictably large NextID sequence gaps. The likelihood of this occurring increases with the use of multiple servers that share a database. The AR System server will not malfunction due to this gap and should not be considered a defect. Has someone been through this exercise who could offer some insight into whether there might be other issues to be aware of? Is this a setting that could be different for different servers in a group (not that I know why one WOULD, but...)? Also, I found it a bit disturbing that the documentation said to adjust this value in the ar.conf file when there is a setting in the Administration form for it (which the doc does not mention). They probably just didn't update that from 7.0.1, but it does tend to make one wonder about the completeness of the rest of the information. Rick No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.14/1425 - Release Date: 5/9/2008 12:38 PM ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Next ID Blocks in Server Groups
We are upgrading to AR System 7.1 (no ITSM - all custom apps), and are looking at the potential performance gains of using the pre-allocated nextId blocks. I attended the BUW session where they talked about the optimal setting being about 100 for heavily used forms, but I got to thinking "What would happen in a fail-over situation? How do the servers play together with those pre-allocated blocks?" My thought was that at worst, the allocated but as yet unused portion of the block would be discarded, and a new one would be spawned on the new primary server, leaving ID gaps of between 1 and 99. That, we could live with. While digging through the 7.1 docs, I read this little gem in the O&T, which seems to sort of obliquely reinforce my opinion: *The use of this configuration setting could result in unpredictably large NextID sequence gaps. The likelihood of this occurring increases with the use of multiple servers that share a database. The AR System server will not malfunction due to this gap and should not be considered a defect. *Has someone been through this exercise who could offer some insight into whether there might be other issues to be aware of? Is this a setting that could be different for different servers in a group (not that I know why one WOULD, but...)? Also, I found it a bit disturbing that the documentation said to adjust this value in the ar.conf file when there is a setting in the Administration form for it (which the doc does not mention). They probably just didn't update that from 7.0.1, but it does tend to make one wonder about the completeness of the rest of the information. Rick ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups
It won't have to know. Any AR Server can receive data from another server through DSO, as long the correct DSO password is configured everywhere. Even the Secondary should be able to receive the data. In fact, if it's strictly an independent copy, the destination isn't supposed to even need a DSO license (although this has proved to be difficult to pull off in a 7.x environment where there are DSO passwords - there's no good way to define that password on a server with no DSO license). Chad Hall (501) 342-2650 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nall, Roger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:48 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups Chad, I think I understand what you are saying but how will the load balancer know which AR Server is the Primary DSO server? Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hall Chad - chahal Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:26 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups Use the virtual name or IP setup on the load balancer. Note that the load balancer itself will have its own name and IP, that's not the one you want to use. Be sure you're using the virtual name/IP that will get routed onto the actual AR Servers. Configure your load balancer to poll each AR Server every 15 seconds or so to make sure they're still up so that it can automatically re-route users if one node goes down. It will need to use the TCP port configured on your AR Servers for the poll. Your source AR Server will simply see the load balancer as a regular destination AR Server for DSO. Chad Hall (501) 342-2650 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nall, Roger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:49 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Server Groups Hello All, I need to DSO data to a new build of a Remedy system that will have 2 application servers with a load balancer in front of them. I have two questions: * Do I use the machine name and IP address for the load balancer or the primary DOS server? * If I used machine name and IP address for the primary server, how do we simulate a test when the primary server is down? This new system is UNIX, ARS 7.01 patch4, Oracle 10g. * Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM *** The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups
Chad, I think I understand what you are saying but how will the load balancer know which AR Server is the Primary DSO server? Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hall Chad - chahal Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:26 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups Use the virtual name or IP setup on the load balancer. Note that the load balancer itself will have its own name and IP, that's not the one you want to use. Be sure you're using the virtual name/IP that will get routed onto the actual AR Servers. Configure your load balancer to poll each AR Server every 15 seconds or so to make sure they're still up so that it can automatically re-route users if one node goes down. It will need to use the TCP port configured on your AR Servers for the poll. Your source AR Server will simply see the load balancer as a regular destination AR Server for DSO. Chad Hall (501) 342-2650 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nall, Roger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:49 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Server Groups Hello All, I need to DSO data to a new build of a Remedy system that will have 2 application servers with a load balancer in front of them. I have two questions: * Do I use the machine name and IP address for the load balancer or the primary DOS server? * If I used machine name and IP address for the primary server, how do we simulate a test when the primary server is down? This new system is UNIX, ARS 7.01 patch4, Oracle 10g. * Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM *** The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups
Use the virtual name or IP setup on the load balancer. Note that the load balancer itself will have its own name and IP, that's not the one you want to use. Be sure you're using the virtual name/IP that will get routed onto the actual AR Servers. Configure your load balancer to poll each AR Server every 15 seconds or so to make sure they're still up so that it can automatically re-route users if one node goes down. It will need to use the TCP port configured on your AR Servers for the poll. Your source AR Server will simply see the load balancer as a regular destination AR Server for DSO. Chad Hall (501) 342-2650 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nall, Roger Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 6:49 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Server Groups Hello All, I need to DSO data to a new build of a Remedy system that will have 2 application servers with a load balancer in front of them. I have two questions: * Do I use the machine name and IP address for the load balancer or the primary DOS server? * If I used machine name and IP address for the primary server, how do we simulate a test when the primary server is down? This new system is UNIX, ARS 7.01 patch4, Oracle 10g. * Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ *** The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Server Groups
Hello All, I need to DSO data to a new build of a Remedy system that will have 2 application servers with a load balancer in front of them. I have two questions: * Do I use the machine name and IP address for the load balancer or the primary DOS server? * If I used machine name and IP address for the primary server, how do we simulate a test when the primary server is down? This new system is UNIX, ARS 7.01 patch4, Oracle 10g. * Thanks, Roger A. Nall Manager, OSSNMS Remedy T-Mobile, USA Desk: 813-348-2556 Cell: 973-652-6723 FAX: 813-348-2565 sf49fanv AIM IM RogerNall Yahoo IM ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server groups
How have you set up the Server Group Signaling information (Database or arsignal)? According to the Configuring doc the database method has a built in delay. You should be able to manually run the arsignal utility to force servers B,C, and D to update. Fred From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Shaffer Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:51 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Server groups ** ARS 7.1 Oracle 10g Server Group Server A - Dev Cache enabled Server B - Admin Operations disabled Server C - Admin Operations disabled Server D - Admin Operations disabled When I modify a filter on Server A in the admin tool , the change does not show up in Server B, C, or D until I bounce those boxes. Is there something I am missing or is that how it is suppose to work in a server group ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Server groups
ARS 7.1 Oracle 10g Server Group Server A - Dev Cache enabled Server B - Admin Operations disabled Server C - Admin Operations disabled Server D - Admin Operations disabled When I modify a filter on Server A in the admin tool , the change does not show up in Server B, C, or D until I bounce those boxes. Is there something I am missing or is that how it is suppose to work in a server group ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups and Group Cache
I always re-login after making group changes and the are always there when I log in...but before I login they stay the same as the old...kinda like the client caches them at login. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Axton Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 7:27 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Server Groups and Group Cache In the server's memory. How long are you giving the server to perform the re-cache operation before you are checking the user form records for the new group name? Axton Grams On 7/19/07, Mark Milke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > we have server group of two servers. We have the problem, that when we > change a group name, then in the group cache, we have the old and the > new group. In the User form can select the new group name, but when we > save the group, the old group name appears in user's Group List. Even > if I delete the old group name from the group_cache table the problem > persists. Where else are groups being kept apart from group_x and > group_cache? Does this have anything to do with Server Groups? > > > Best, > > Mark > > __ > _ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups and Group Cache
Mark, I know its a simple question, but have you done an arreload for both the groups and users? I find that fixs alot of strange issues with groups. hbr On 7/19/07, Mark Milke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, we have server group of two servers. We have the problem, that when we change a group name, then in the group cache, we have the old and the new group. In the User form can select the new group name, but when we save the group, the old group name appears in user's Group List. Even if I delete the old group name from the group_cache table the problem persists. Where else are groups being kept apart from group_x and group_cache? Does this have anything to do with Server Groups? Best, Mark ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" -- Howard Richter Remedy ServiceDesk Manager CedarCrestone Managed Services Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: Server Groups and Group Cache
In the server's memory. How long are you giving the server to perform the re-cache operation before you are checking the user form records for the new group name? Axton Grams On 7/19/07, Mark Milke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, we have server group of two servers. We have the problem, that when we change a group name, then in the group cache, we have the old and the new group. In the User form can select the new group name, but when we save the group, the old group name appears in user's Group List. Even if I delete the old group name from the group_cache table the problem persists. Where else are groups being kept apart from group_x and group_cache? Does this have anything to do with Server Groups? Best, Mark ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Server Groups and Group Cache
Hi everyone, we have server group of two servers. We have the problem, that when we change a group name, then in the group cache, we have the old and the new group. In the User form can select the new group name, but when we save the group, the old group name appears in user's Group List. Even if I delete the old group name from the group_cache table the problem persists. Where else are groups being kept apart from group_x and group_cache? Does this have anything to do with Server Groups? Best, Mark ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: More Server Groups
They are officially supported, and we use the heck out of them, VMWare ESX (DEV/TEST/PROD) and MS-Virtual Server (Sandboxs) Thanks-n-advance; HDT Platform Incident / Problem Manager & Architect Robert Molenda IT OS PA Tel: +1 408 503 2701 Fax: +1 408 503 2912 Mobile: +1 408 472 8097 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quality begins with your actions. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Wollman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 5:55 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups So are Virtual Environments supported by BMC? Has anyone else used them? Matthew L. Wollman Supervisor of Faculty & Staff Help Desk Services Faculty of Arts & Sciences Computer Services Office (617) 496-8947 Cell (617) 285-6952 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Easter, David Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:23 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups You can find the Statement of Direction for Virtual Environments at: http://www.bmc.com/products/documents/68/66/66866/66866.pdf The FAQ states: Can I use the same purchased BMC Remedy licenses on multiple virtual machines? No, unless the license you purchased would allow for use on multiple non-virtual systems. "Spoofing" or duplication of MAC or IP addresses to circumvent license agreements is strictly forbidden. Are there any pricing discounts for virtual environments? Virtual servers will be treated as physical servers with regard to licensing. A customer using AR System or ITSM applications within a virtual server based operating system is subject to all licensing agreements and policies as if the server were a physical and non-virtual server. No inherent discounts or changes in licensing policy will be implemented for virtual environments at this time. Also note that Server group functionality is not supported for multiple servers on one (physical or virtual) machine. Your previous question was about server groups - so just covering that base in case that's what you were thinking... -David J. Easter Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit 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. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Doble Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups That won't make the client a happy camper. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:35:43 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups As far as I understand, yes. The licenses are per arserver instance. This applies to separate arserver instances inside virtual machines the same as it does to separate arserver instances on physical hosts. Axton Grams On 5/21/07, Chris Doble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > Now, > > If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on > the 2 boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? > > Thank You, > > Chris Doble > Mobile: 949-533-5346 __20060125___This > posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: More Server Groups
So are Virtual Environments supported by BMC? Has anyone else used them? Matthew L. Wollman Supervisor of Faculty & Staff Help Desk Services Faculty of Arts & Sciences Computer Services Office (617) 496-8947 Cell (617) 285-6952 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Easter, David Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:23 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups You can find the Statement of Direction for Virtual Environments at: http://www.bmc.com/products/documents/68/66/66866/66866.pdf The FAQ states: Can I use the same purchased BMC Remedy licenses on multiple virtual machines? No, unless the license you purchased would allow for use on multiple non-virtual systems. "Spoofing" or duplication of MAC or IP addresses to circumvent license agreements is strictly forbidden. Are there any pricing discounts for virtual environments? Virtual servers will be treated as physical servers with regard to licensing. A customer using AR System or ITSM applications within a virtual server based operating system is subject to all licensing agreements and policies as if the server were a physical and non-virtual server. No inherent discounts or changes in licensing policy will be implemented for virtual environments at this time. Also note that Server group functionality is not supported for multiple servers on one (physical or virtual) machine. Your previous question was about server groups - so just covering that base in case that's what you were thinking... -David J. Easter Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit 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. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Doble Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups That won't make the client a happy camper. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:35:43 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups As far as I understand, yes. The licenses are per arserver instance. This applies to separate arserver instances inside virtual machines the same as it does to separate arserver instances on physical hosts. Axton Grams On 5/21/07, Chris Doble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > Now, > > If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on > the 2 boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? > > Thank You, > > Chris Doble > Mobile: 949-533-5346 __20060125___This > posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: More Server Groups
You can find the Statement of Direction for Virtual Environments at: http://www.bmc.com/products/documents/68/66/66866/66866.pdf The FAQ states: Can I use the same purchased BMC Remedy licenses on multiple virtual machines? No, unless the license you purchased would allow for use on multiple non-virtual systems. "Spoofing" or duplication of MAC or IP addresses to circumvent license agreements is strictly forbidden. Are there any pricing discounts for virtual environments? Virtual servers will be treated as physical servers with regard to licensing. A customer using AR System or ITSM applications within a virtual server based operating system is subject to all licensing agreements and policies as if the server were a physical and non-virtual server. No inherent discounts or changes in licensing policy will be implemented for virtual environments at this time. Also note that Server group functionality is not supported for multiple servers on one (physical or virtual) machine. Your previous question was about server groups - so just covering that base in case that's what you were thinking... -David J. Easter Sr. Product Manager, Service Management Business Unit 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. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Doble Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:49 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups That won't make the client a happy camper. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:35:43 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups As far as I understand, yes. The licenses are per arserver instance. This applies to separate arserver instances inside virtual machines the same as it does to separate arserver instances on physical hosts. Axton Grams On 5/21/07, Chris Doble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > Now, > > If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on > the 2 boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? > > Thank You, > > Chris Doble > Mobile: 949-533-5346 __20060125___This > posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: More Server Groups
That won't make the client a happy camper. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Axton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:35:43 To:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: More Server Groups As far as I understand, yes. The licenses are per arserver instance. This applies to separate arserver instances inside virtual machines the same as it does to separate arserver instances on physical hosts. Axton Grams On 5/21/07, Chris Doble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > Now, > > If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on the 2 > boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? > > Thank You, > > Chris Doble > Mobile: 949-533-5346 __20060125___This > posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Re: More Server Groups
As far as I understand, yes. The licenses are per arserver instance. This applies to separate arserver instances inside virtual machines the same as it does to separate arserver instances on physical hosts. Axton Grams On 5/21/07, Chris Doble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ** Now, If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on the 2 boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? Thank You, Chris Doble Mobile: 949-533-5346 __20060125___This posting was submitted with HTML in it___ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
More Server Groups
Now, If I have 2 physical servers and a total of 4 virtual servers built on the 2 boxes, am I going to still need 4 AR server licenses? Thank You, Chris Doble Mobile: 949-533-5346 ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
Licensing server groups in an ITSMv7 environment
Happy Monday listers ... For those of you currently (or planning on) using ITSM7 applications in server group environments, I have a question: Did BMC require you to purchase application licenses (i.e. BMC:Problem Mgmt Application, BMC:Service Level Mgmt Application) for every server in your server group, or were you able to purchase the application once, and then buy additional AR Server licenses -- and have keys issued for the group based on the additional AR server licenses. Please feel free to respond off-list, as this is one of those questions that will probably have varied and mysterious (secret?) answers. I have heard a few different things from a few different people (i.e. Sales vs. Support vs. Partners vs. Customers) Thanks, Tony -- Tony Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED] 262-703-5911 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is expressly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000. CAUTION: Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any message created, sent and received. Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages to or from authorized Kohl's Associates at any time without any further consent. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
