On a related note: It was my understanding that the Phone Home
feature/Integration Service would not work
using the local Agent. However, I understand that our installation works
fine using the Phone Home feature
with Integration Service to register and integrate with ProactiveNet using
local Agent. Can someone comment
It is important to distinguish between the "Local Agent" (a specially configured BPPM/PNET Agent that is installed with the BPPM server) and an additional agent installed on the same system as the BPPM Server.
The "phone home" feature of the Integration Service will not work with the Local Agent. So the correct choice during installation of the BPPM Server is to not enable the Integration Service. I've been told that the option is being removed in the next update.
The feature does work perfectly well if a second BPPM/PNET agent is installed on the same system as the BPPM server. Note that you will not be given the choice to install the Integration Service on a second BPPM/PNET agent on any system. If you installed the Integration Service with the Local Agent, you'd have to remove it before installing the second BPPM/PNET agent. And of course it works fine when a BPPM/PNET agent is installed on a different system.
And the other features of the Integration Service work perfectly fine even with the Local Agent. So you can use old-style manual configuration of PATROL adapter even if you install the Integration Service with the Local Agent.
Thanks for the clarification. I was aware of the distinction but it's
always good to mention this at every
The thing that puzzles me is that I've been told by one of my coworkers that
when installing new PatrolAgents,
they configured the phone home feature to point to the ProactiveNet local
agent (the one that's installed with
ProactiveNet Server) and the integration worked with no issues. Everything
I've been told leads me to believe
this should not have worked but he says it did. I wanted to understand how
this is possible.
I realize that the setup that we're currently (i.e. using ProactiveNet local
agent instead of remote agents) is
not the best choice and this is something that we plan to change. It's just
that using the local agent is the
path of least resistance, that it's a natural choice when building up a new
system. However, I'm sure that
continuing down this path is likely to lead to a scalability nightmare
affecting monitoring and performance
You're correct that using the Local Agent (or even an additional agent on the same system) isn't scalable. As you well know, the BPPM Server has a lot of work to do running analytics, loading the Local Agent up with anything extra just isn't a good idea. It's a good choice for proof-of-concept and demo installs.
Shoot me a private message or email with the name of the person who was able to get the Integration Service to work with the Local Agent. The PATROL experts (you know who I mean) have thoroughly diagnosed this and stated that it will not work.
Just want to throw in here that as of BPPM 8.5, the service formerly known as the PATROL Proxy is now called the Integration Service. The option during install of the server is "Integration Service" (don't check this when installing the BPPM Server!) and all the documentation now refers to it as the Integration Service.
It serves to integrate the BPPM Server with multiple different external data collection mechanisms, not just PATROL.