Highlighted
Super Contributor.. Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..
148 views

CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

We have run manually the scan.exe in multiples nodes (Windows computers) two times.

First Time: 12:45 PM

Second Time: 14:45 PM

The first time results in a create node with their elements (Installed Software, InventoryScanner, Cpus.....etc) . All these elements have the same time in LastDiscoveredTime (12:45 PM)

The second time we observe that many elements have not the LastDiscoveredTime updated. The node and the InventoryScanner have this field updated (14:45 PM) but many elements (not all) have LastDiscoveredTime not updated (the time in these elements is 12:45 PM => the first launch)


We have try to reprocess the scanner file with no lucky.

All this test is using "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"


Why this behaviour?

0 Likes
7 Replies
Highlighted
Acclaimed Contributor.
Acclaimed Contributor.

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

You may need to clear the cache on the probe side. (by clicking on the job and selecting the clear cache option). Let me know if this resolves the issue

Likes are appreciated!
0 Likes
Highlighted
Super Contributor.. Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

Hello popadiyski:

Clear the cache resolves the issue only one-time.

When i clear the cache and run a new Inventory by manual scanner, all the CI's discovered are sent to the UCMDB (all the CI's have the same LastDiscoveredTime in UCMDB).

But when I run again an Inventory by Manual scanner only a few CI's have the LastDiscoveredTime updated.

We have to use the manually scan.exe (Inventory by manual scanner) to run the scanner Inventory in computers manually. We want to when we run the scan.exe all the InstalledSoftware have the same LastDiscoveredTime. Is this possible?

I think our problem is the normal behaviour os the probe, we have read about this two options thant can help us:

appilog.agent.local.process.result.filterRedundant
appilog.agent.local.process.result.filterRedundant.filterIgnoredCIs

Thanks.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Acclaimed Contributor.
Acclaimed Contributor.

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

Well,  this is considered a feature, not a bug. Do you really need the LastDiscoveredDate? There is an option to stop this behavior in the DataFlowProbe.properties, but it may break some integrations. LastAccessTime is probably a more accurate value if you want to be sure the CI is alive.

 
 
Likes are appreciated!
0 Likes
Highlighted
Super Contributor.. Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

I explain our situation:

We have schedule (every day at 15:45 PM) an enrichment rule to delete Installedsoftware whose LastDiscoveredTime or LastAccessTime is not changed during 24hours. (This is only valid for manual scanners (InventoryScanner whose LastDiscoveredBy is like "manual%")

For example, if we run a manually scanner for a computer at 11:00 AM today, only a few CI's gets the LastAccessTime and LastDicoveredTime updates (node, InventoryScanner and a few installedsoftware). The others CI's (those who are not changed) are pending to touch by the probe and pending to update the LastAccessTime/LastDiscoveredTime. (I don´t known when the touch mechanism start).
Please, confirm me if this is the normal behaviuour.

But at 15:45 PM, the enrichment rule starts and delete those pending software, because they are not update the LastAccessTime or LastDiscoveredTime

Any ideas to fix this?

0 Likes
Highlighted
Acclaimed Contributor.
Acclaimed Contributor.

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

Hi @chuchi ,

 

yes, this sounds as normal working of the touch algorithm. 

What you can improve to the enrichment, is to be sure that the "touch" has passed and you are deleting only the CIs which are not active any more. How to do that?

Create a TQL with Installed Software_1 <- Node -> Installed Software_2

Set properties to Installed Software_1 to be older than 24 hours (LastAccessTime unchanged in 24 h)

Set properties to Installed Software_2 to be touched in the last 24 hours (LastAccessTime changed in 24h, Create Time to be unchanged in 24h - so to be touched and not newly discovered)

Delete  Installed Software_1. This way the TQL will return only Installed Software which are not touched after touching has occurred.

 

Petko 

This way 

Likes are appreciated!
0 Likes
Highlighted
Super Contributor.. Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

We have test the rule and i think is not works well.

We post an image of the rule to checked if this OK.

chuchi_0-1587554783342.png

Imagine that we scheduler this enrichment rule everyday at 03:00PM
Imagine that a node is scanned at 05:45PM:
   The changed elements reflects in UCMDB the LastAccessTime (LAT) and LastDiscoveredTime (LDT) with updated time (05:45PM).
   The unchanged elements reflects in UCMDB the older LastAccessTime and LastDiscoveredTime time, they are pending to update these fields when the touching mechanism starts.
Imagine that the touching mechanism starts everyday at 03:30PM. The unchanged elements will not updated until the next day at 03:30PM.
So the next day the rule will delete these elements because it started before the touching mechanism.

 

In the InstalledSoftware_1 (software to be deleted) we have this software

chuchi_1-1587555425090.png

That belongs to a computer whose was scanned at the same time (04/21/2020 11:14AM)

chuchi_2-1587555425091.png

So, this existing software will be deleted by the rule.

 

I think the only way to "play" with LastAccessTime changed during 24 hours is to known when the "touching" mechanism starts

0 Likes
Highlighted
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: CI's and LastDiscoveredTime in "Inventory Discovery by Manual Scanner"

Take a look at all the atributes like lastModifiedBy and so on. It may be dealing with probe cache.
Still, there is a known issue on this flow and it will be fixed soon.
My guess is that it's version dependent and this needs a deeper investigation.
You're not the only one to notice this.
Kind regards,
Bogdan Mureșan
EMEA CMS Technical Success
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.