1 of 1 people found this helpful
What would that even mean?
Application modeling definition is UI driven, there is no utility for creating them.
I have a large number of applications to model, some of them with a lot of nodes.
I like to work with batches, and I was thinking that it could be easier and faster to do this work with a SCRIPT.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
If you mean SI patterns for SIs that are very similar, probably you can use a script fed by a config file to create the pattern modules. For this use case, I have a number of small templates for the different elements inside a pattern module, which I copy paste and then adapt for the specific SI at hand. I have a script in the pipeline but currently havent't got spare time for this. As soon as the SI does not follow that "standard", you have to resort to manual TPL scripting.
If you mean BAI patterns, I would not recommend doing that.
Hi Bernard Stern, thanks for your attention!
I was not thinking of something like a CAM or similar. Even because In my environment, to follow a standard in the names of things, unfortunately, is nota practice for some IT areas.
When we receive the information for mapping an application (or service), it comes accompanied by a document, relating all servers that support the app.
My desire is that BMC should have some kind of utility that could read a list of nodes and then create (or delete, or update) the BAI for this app.
I registered an idea on the BMC site suggesting this.
When it becomes available for the vote, I should appreciate your support to turn it real (voting)
2 of 2 people found this helpful
OK, I see. In that case I believe you can do this. First I would create a generic SI pattern based on hostnames. Something like
appl1_hosts := [host_a1_1, host_a1_2, ...];
appl2_hosts := [host_a2_1, host_a2_2, ...];
on host := Host created, confirmed;
if you know that you only have linux servers, you should use that filter in the triggers.
hostname := host.hostname;
if hostname in appl1_hosts then
si_instance := "APPL 1";
elif hostname in appl2_hosts then
si_instance := "APPL 2";
si_type := 'Hostname based SI';
name := "%si_type% called %si_instance% on %host.name%",
Using this mechanism, you will have 'Hostname based SI' software instances with a dedicated instance for a dedicated application.
When you have that, you can easily create a CAM BAI for one application and use the result to generate BAIs for other applications.
I am using this mechanism to map components where there is nothing running on the server (e.g. server hosting a component triggered by a batch job).
Hi folks, I've created these two ideas and would like You to read it and vote if You think it is a good enhancement to BMC Discovery Tool.
https://communities.bmc.com/ideas/20241 Discovery - Application Modeling by batch
https://communities.bmc.com/ideas/20228 Discovery - Editing Application Model Like Groups (CIs like pills)
you can use the groups for application modelling (Static Applications). All you need is to add "StaticApp:" before the application name and this will be sync as BAI to the CMDB.
Hi Mark Fischer, thanks for your reply and your attention!
I already used this enhancement to configure an application in my test environment.
But, I found some restrictions compared to BAI:
1. The rules "Never Show" doesn't apply to Groups (I think). So, each component that I wish to exclude, should be done manually each one.
2. Groups can be associated directly with HOSTS (servers), while BAI must be associated with Software vision, I didn't try yet but, is it possible to exclude SIs of a Group?.
3. Each time you want to see "visualize Model", you need to open the group, select all Hosts, and only then, open the Visualize Model, while on BAI, it opens directly. This could drive other users for usage mistakes.
Besides the differences stated, I really don't know what are the other differences between BAI and "StaticApp:". Would you clarify it for me?