Pull Definite Set of Nodes & their related Topology from NNMI using NNMI Adapter rather than all CI

Idea ID 1679463

Pull Definite Set of Nodes & their related Topology from NNMI using NNMI Adapter rather than all CI

0 Votes

Hi Team, 

This is regarding NNMI Pull Integration . We are facing a problem during NNMI pull ie its running for morethan 8 hours  in a day to pull 22000 nodes+22000 Layer2. . Rather than this, if we can pull last discovered data or definite set of data based on  filters like Node IP's or device type's  that would save a lot of time on integration time & perfomance as well. There is a feasiblity to do that vis using filters in NNMI webservice call. So I would suggest to enhance the NNMI adapter to pull the Definte no of CI's from NNMi rather than all of them . its like a delta pull. 

Thanks,

Lakshmi Devi

5 Comments
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

While UCMDB does offer an NNMI pull adapter, this is not the recommended method of moving data from NNMI to UCMDB.  The recommended method is to be using the NNMI Push adapter to UCMDB.  The reason for this are many

1. The performance will generall be better
2. Pull integrations do not handle deletions well, while Push integrations handle deletions without issue
3. The NNMI Push adapter does delta pushes all the time, and only pushes FULL data on internvals (that I think you can set).  Therefore, you won't have the issue of waiting for ALL the data to be pulled into UCMDB from NNMI.  Rather, when anything changes, NNMI will push over the content that has changed.

Have you tried to use the NNMI Push Adapter for UCMDB?  We don't typically make improvements to the NNMI Pull adapter except in extreme circumstances

Micro Focus Contributor
Micro Focus Contributor
Status changed to: Declined

we recommend to use the nnmi to ucmdb push adapter for the integration.

Outstanding Contributor.
Outstanding Contributor.

Whil I understand the logic in promoting the better, more functional, adapter, we need to be able to centrally manage and control all integrations (as much as possible) to CMDB.  When things go wrong, resolution can be hampered when/if these products are owned by disparate teams in an organization.  I urge you to rethink your stance on this or put some thought into managing the NNMi push integration via a CMDB-accessible UI.

Respected Contributor.
Respected Contributor.

I agree with mike_toronto2. I've tried to use NNMi Push Adapter in comparison with pull integration type:

- ucmdb administrator loses the ability to search for issues root cause on UCMDB side

- integration customization is a challenge (UCMDB administator cannot customize anything..)

- any request to MF support about this integration is a challenge

- debugging of the integration is awful (no detailed logs, not detailed information in docs, etc)

- putting nodes into netdevice CIT is good solution for RTSM, but not for UCMDB

Honored Contributor.
Honored Contributor.

More focus should be given to Population integration as MF uCMDB only has Population integration (i.e. Pull Topology from NNMi by REST API Adapter) for populating layer2 relationship between uCMDB Server and Network device monitored in NNMi.

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.