Alerts Not Entering Maintenance State with Default Maintenance Rules

[kaiosilva]

I'm trying to use the default maintenance rules in ServiceNow. From what I understand, CIs that are in maintenance or under a change request are automatically added to the em_impact_maint_ci table. However, I noticed that alerts created for these CIs do not enter the maintenance state, and the "Maintenance" (maintenance) field remains false.

Has anyone encountered this issue before? Is there any additional configuration required for alerts to recognize the maintenance state of CIs?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[ZacharyKenyon]

Can you validate whether the CIs are actually being added to the Impact Maintenance cis [em_impact_maint_ci] table?  If they are being added to that table, then alerts against those CIs should be in maintenance when they arrive.

The out-of-box behavior is that CIs will be placed in the em_impact_maint_ci table if either of these is true:

• The CI's install_status is "In Maintenance" (value = 3)
• The CI is the Configuration Item (cmdb_ci) on a Change Request, where the change request is in either Scheduled or Implementing state, and the current time is between the Planned Start and Planned End dates
  • it does not use CIs in the Affected CIs list out-of-the-box

If the CIs are not being added to the maintenance table, I'd check the scheduled job "Event Management - Maintenance Calculator" to confirm it's running, and check your Maintenance Rules to confirm that they're active.

[kaiosilva]

Yes, the CI meets all the conditions, and the records are inserted into the em_impact_maint_ci table, but the alert does not change its status to "In Maintenance."

The feature only works when I follow this procedure: https://support.servicenow.com/kb?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0830122

[ZacharyKenyon]

It sounds like the root cause from that KB article is that the em_impact_maint_ci table is too full.  How many records are in your em_impact_maint_ci table?

Are you using just the out-of-the-box maintenance rules, or have you added or changed maintenance rules? 

Do you see that error message in the logs after the maintenance calculation job runs?

[kaiosilva]

My em_impact_maint_ci table has only 3 records, so I don’t believe it’s the same issue mentioned in the KB article. The problem is that every time I run the described procedure, the maintenance window works correctly, but I have to manually execute the KB script each time.

Attached is a screenshot of the records for reference.