Servers for General use and relationship
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
3 weeks ago
We have multiple teams requesting servers for “general use.” These servers are used to run shared tools, scripts, scheduled jobs, backups, and other processes that cannot run on individual desktops due to timeouts, job duration, or resource constraints.
Currently, we are not using Technical Services (planned future state), and I want to avoid these servers becoming orphaned in the CMDB.
What is the recommended approach for creating an appropriate relationship or ownership model so these servers are properly represented and governed within the CMDB?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
3 weeks ago
Hi @Lenny Williams ,
When you say orphaned, are you considering it from a CMDB Health perspective? There are no orphan rules out of the box so you are pretty much in control there. I would recommend to have at least owned_by and managed_by_group populated. You could also consider assigned_to if you want to keep the ownership on your end.
Regards,
Niklas
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
2 weeks ago
Thank you for the response. When I mentioned “orphaned,” I was referring less to CMDB Health rules and more to governance and service relationships within the model. In our environment, servers are typically expected to have a relationship to either an Business Application, Application Service, or a Service CI. The challenge in this scenario is that several teams request servers for general utility purposes (scripts, batch jobs, automation, backups, and other tooling) that are not tied to a single application. We're looking for a solution on best practices for this.
