Duplicate CI's Computer names - Retired Computer Names getting renamed with existing active CI name
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-14-2025 10:07 PM
We are currently using SCCM 2016 ( will be moving to SGC in few months) to connect to SCCM Server.
Recently migrated from SCCM to MECM, so all the devices getting reported to MECM.
After updating SCCM connection to connect to New MECM DB , the connect was successful. But when the import run we could see that Duplicate Computer Names in cmdb_ci_computer table.
Computer records Names which were in Retired status , got renamed with an existing computer name which are in installed state.
No new record getting created , but renaming of Computer name is happening. So we have duplicate records.
We reverted the sccm connection back to use the old SCCM until the issue of duplication is addressed.
Transform map in use has SYS id with Coalesce true. Checked Identification rules and Transform maps.
FYI...MECM assigned new resource id's to Computers when they got moved from OLD Sccm to MECM.
Any suggestion/solution on how to prevent the duplication will be appreciated.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-14-2025 10:28 PM
Hi @rontha
Can we please review the following:
- CMDB Identification Rules: Ensure that ServiceNow’s CMDB Identification Rules are correctly configured for the data coming from MECM.
- Reconciliation Rules: Check the Reconciliation Engine to ensure that it is properly matching records. Reconciliation ensures that only one record exists for each device or CI (Configuration Item).
- Make sure that the key attributes (e.g., MAC address, serial number, or asset tag) that uniquely identify a device are being properly sent and mapped.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-16-2025 04:37 AM
Thanks for your reply , I already checked the Rules, I will create another Rule and see if this helps