Conflicting Dynamic CI Queries

[mcconnellsj]

Customer has ITOM Discovery with no Service Mapping.

For the manual management of Application Services, SN SME advised to use Dynamic CI query service types as the population method.

This has caused an conundrum with respect to the sync of support, change and managed by groups.

At the infrastructure level we have dynamic ci groups contained by technical service offerings, which are mapping the groups to the correct CIs just fine.

But as the application service is just a dynamic ci group too, setting the groups on them is then overwriting those from the offerings.

This is the OOTB behaviour, and obviously we can disable the behaviour for the these dynamic application services.  Just curious how others have tackled it, or even we should take a different approach entirely.

[Barry Kant]

hi, 
I use Dynamic CI Groups exceptionally as 'application service' mainly to group assets together. 
eg: Laptops is a certain region. So not for application stacks itself. 
Maybe using Tag-Based mapping is a better fit for the mapping you are looking for. Dynamic Service is also an option but that might be less controlled as it simply adds CIs based on the existing relations within the depth level. 

The sync can be managed but that requires a tweak in the logics (there are 2 logics for this sync of data).
1 - Business Rule on Service Offering table (condition it is a technical offering), syncing to a related Dynamic CI Group first by looking up the cmdb_rel_ci table. You could change the last filter to control it in a better way. 
2 - There is a scheduled job (syncing all new added CIs) running once a day. This would need a similar filter. So the key is if the sync is done towards the Dynamic CI Group in the first place --> as it is a 2-step sync). 


Personnaly I wouldn't use Dynamic CI Groups as a way to group resources to an application stack. 
BR,
Barry

[mcconnellsj]

Hi Barry, thanks for the insight.

I mentioned customer does not have Service Mapping, the tag based method would require this correct?

Yes, I amended the business rule and scheduled job for now, thanks for the confirmation.

In terms of not using Dynamic CI groups, I didn't think there was much choice, and it was on advice of an architect at SN.

Anyways, if you still believe Dynamic Service is a possibility I am intrigued on how to use it, when testing creation of one up I fail to grasp how it is populated.

Thanks again.