Federated Configuration Management System

[RT]

When (if) using a federated Configuration Management System, where many CMDbs (or sub-systems) make up one overall system, is it a good idea 'configuration manage' the make-up of the Configuration Management System, or is this over complication?

E.g.

CMDb001 - Main Configuration Management System
CMDb002 - Quality Management System
CMDb003 - Definitive Hardware Store

[UrgentJensen]

RT a CMDB is not above the law.

Approach it like you would any other system. Afterall you've got to be able to support it, right?

UJ
_________________
Did I just say that out loud?

(Beige badge)

[UKVIKING]

RT

NOTE: SILLINESS ONE
What do you mean Federated... did a bunch of CMDB ceded and form their own nation w/constitution etc.....

The answer to the question as to the number of the DBs in a F CMDB is

//// mister owl
how many licks does it take to get to the center of the tootsie pop.

kid hands lollipop to owl

lick .... 1 lick .... 2

you fill in the rest

IT DEPENDS
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter

[RT]

UJ - Thanks for the confirmation. My main concern was whether the idea of managing the CMDb within the CMDb would be too much for some people, but they seem to have grasped the idea.

My other question is kind of at the other end of the scale; where managing the CMDb itself is the highest level, where do you draw the line at the lowest level?

Someone here at work suggested that a disk store should be considered part of the CMDb, but I suggested that raising an RFC to remove a disk, updating the log to say it has been removed, then raising an RFC to put it back, then updating the log again, was just creating an administrative nightmare. Instead we should just define procedure/rules for the use of the disk store, which would be used when completing other RFCs. The originator agreed with this suggestion.

But then this got me thinking that perhaps I'd been misinterpreting the Definitive Software Library and Definitive Hardware Store as CMDbs. Are these systems that should be configuration managed, or are they just repositories that are used in the configuration management of software/hardware?

[UKVIKING]

RT

My Uncle, a CPA (US) (Charted Accountant UK ?) once said

never spend a dollar chasign a penny

For a CMDB, the lowest level of detail should be what information is needed by whom, how the information is added, updated, who does it etc

For example

If you are tracking servers, what level of info is necessary to provide support

If you host the servers, then rack name/ID and place within the rack would be usually to the DC staff providing support
otherwise..... the only info you need to track/record/update about the server is where it is and who provides support (external hosting)

If you merely manage the applications, then all you need to know is the server name and who provides support for the system.

etc etc
_________________
John Hardesty
ITSM Manager's Certificate (Red Badge)

Change Management is POWER & CONTROL. /....evil laughter