Add name to UD_Unique_ID in VERIFICATION to avoid collapses due to duplicate values

Add name to UD_Unique_ID in VERIFICATION to avoid collapses due to duplicate values

When running discovery jobs that have agents installed, sometimes the build teams will not follow the advice of the UCMDB team and they will just clone all the agents to new systems.  This causes a rash of cloned UD_Unique_ID values which, in turn, cause massive reconciliation overhead and creates 'supernodes' in UCMDB that contain all the information from all affected CIs.

I would request we add the following to VERIFICATION rules in node identification:

<verification-criterion>
<attribute-condition attributeName="ud_unique_id" operator="EqualIgnoreCase" includeNullValue="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict"/>
<attribute-condition attributeName="name" operator="EqualIgnoreCase" includeNullValue="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict"/>
</verification-criterion>

This would have the effect of NOT merging CIs based only on a UD Unique ID being the same IF the names are different.  Then the teams can track which UD Unique IDs have been duplicated and they can help the build teams to remediate that without impacting data quality inside UCMDB.  In addition, since the validation rule exists still for UD Unique ID, the call home events would be processed normally.

7 Comments
popadiyski Outstanding Contributor.
Outstanding Contributor.

great idea. long lasting issue

Micro Focus Contributor
Micro Focus Contributor
Status changed to: Declined
 
Super Contributor.. Yiannis Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

This is a major issue in our customer's environment as well. They clone systems with UDA all the time, the result being that merges of in reality different systems occur in uCMDB, due to the same UD Unique IDs. To avoid this, we tried editing the identification rule for nodes as suggested by Support, but for some reason this resulted in even more massive merges, to the point where we had to restore a DB backup (support case is still open, but no other suggestions so far).

Unfortunately, I see that the idea was declined, so it does not seem that this issue will ever be addressed.

Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Check this documentation out.... around UD_Unique_ID:

https://docs.microfocus.com/itom/Universal_CMDB:2018.05/dfm/Agent_c

 

Trusted Contributor.. mlukezic Trusted Contributor..
Trusted Contributor..

We've had to deal with this major issue as well.  Even though the build teams (or their vendors) have been provided instructions for the UD Agent when creating and deploying images, along with the impact of not following said instructions, we have no control over whether or not the instructions are followed.  Recently, we again ended up with supernodes and their underlying impacts.  We put in place the verification rule suggested by Keith which was very helpful in stopping the merging of nodes into supernodes.  Now we could query for which nodes had non-unique UD Unique IDs so we could target those nodes for UD Agent reset.

Once the UD Agent cleanup was underway, we deleted the supernodes and cleared the ExcludeTable (clearExcludeTable operation in UCMDB Server JMX console).  We had +20,000 entries in the ExcludeTable which normally might be only a few hundred.  We monitored the ExcludeTable during this process (and may have cleared it a couple more times) but now it has been stable at 200+.

This approach is more of a workaround than solution. When the nodes were re-discovered having their own unique UD Unique ID, they did not merge with existing node so there were duplicates that we needed to clean up.

It would be interesting to know the reason why this request was declined. Furthermore, we feel there should be a more robust solution provided to deal with this situation, whether the suggested or further enhanced reconciliation rule, some kind of override or UD Unique ID reset option within UD Upgrade Agent job, etc.

Super Contributor.. Yiannis Super Contributor..
Super Contributor..

Keith, thanks a lot for the suggestion. Unfortunately we are at version 10.33, so this option is not available. Will keep it in mind though for when we upgrade.

Trusted Contributor.. mlukezic Trusted Contributor..
Trusted Contributor..

I didn't see Keith's reference to the new UD_Unique_ID option in 11.0 before my post, seems this addresses my last comment.  We, too, are at version 10.33 so not able to take advantage of the new option at this time.  The reconciliation rule was still helpful though.

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.