Application Service to Infrastructure CIs

[paschos]

Just starting my crawl... can I directly relate my Application Service (i.e. "Sales - Prod") to my Infrastructure CIs (i.e. "Unix Server ABC" and "Oracle DB XYZ") or must I include Application in-between:  Application Services --> Application --> Infrastructure CIs?  

[paschos]

Yes, that is helpful.  Thanks.  Can you give me some examples of Application that would lie in-between in my example?  Is it something like Unix Service, Oracle Service or Websphere Service?  Am I on the right track???  

[DaveHertel · Accepted solution]

Hi -- close, but typically the application CI is the installation of a running process (although other ways exist, this is very common).  i.e. Discovery finds XYZ windows process running, and therefore create an application CI that represents the running proc.   With disco, this happens automatically for things like SQL, Apache, etc... each found running process becomes an application CI.

So the relationship is like:  Service > Application CI (running proc) > server its hosted upon.

Hope this helps?

[Harps1]

To add to Daves point you can go to the CI Class Manager and expand the Application class to see the extended tables. That will give you a list of all the OOTB applications on the platform that should assist you with thinking. Obviously your home grown applications wont appear there but if you can tie it to a running process (.exe) then you can create your own extended application class.

Remember that you should have a runs on runs relationship to the server that it is running on, so MS-SQL instance would be an application CI but you would have a unique CI for everything single installed MS-SQL instance.

[paschos]

Thanks that's helpful.

Just to summarize and make sure I understand:

Application Service (ABC - Prod) "Depends On" Application (MS-SQL ZZZ database instance) "Runs On" (Server 123).

Application Service (ABC - Prod) could also have several other Application records (WebSphere, Apache, etc.) all with a "Depends On" relationship. 

[DaveHertel]

Hi, Yes you have it understood correctly.