I know this question gets asked quite a bit. Conceptually it can be hard to grasp, especially going from different CMDB tools to ServiceNow CMDB. The following may be a TLDR (Too Long Didn't Read) so I apologize in advance. But for those who enjoy the spirit of debate please read on and comment.
IMHO, I do not like the way ServiceNow structures upstream and downstream relationships in the CMDB, especially when you try to overlay that structure with the concept of a Parent/Child.
Logically, a "stream" would only affect those things downstream from it, the same way you would imagine a Parent to affect a Child. This is where ServiceNow gets it wrong in my opinion.
It is simply counter-intuitive to think of a Web Server as a Parent to a Windows Server.
Let's take the image Michael was kind enough to post above. Imagine as an exercise that all the arrows pointed the other way. It would align to the way you would create or instantiate all those pieces to create that flow. Note: the below is not accurate but is my interpretation of how this should look.
Upstream should always be a Parent and Downstream should always be a Child. Parent first, Child Second. We see this pattern everywhere. You would not logically think a Web Site is the Parent of the Web Server. You literally have to have the Web Server running first (a Parent, right?) before the Web Site could be up (Child).
Can the Web Site exist without the Web Server? And the same for the Web Server, could it have been created without the Windows Server itself?
If the Web Site was stopped, would the Server be down? Of course not, and that is where the picture confuses many of us.
I'm curious what others think so please let me know your thoughts.
