Service Desk Practitioners Forum
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches

Go to solution
Regular Collector

Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches

Hello All

I am looking for some suggestion on how to best create the relationships between servers and networking hardware. I have loaded our CMDB with all our servers and switches/routers.

Is it best to start with the Server as the Parent and then attached network equipement as Child. Or is it better create a new "Related To" type and use that to create the relatioships.

Any suggestions from those of you who have done this would be greatly appriciated.

Mark O'Loughlin
Honored Contributor

Re: Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches

Hi David,

we have adopted the approach to use the "Related CI's" with a relationship type defined.

We keep the parent-child relationships for those relations that the CI needs in order to operate (i.e. the parent cannot operate without the child CI) e.g. Parent=Server Child=Oerating System / Hard Drive

We use the "Related CI's" where the parent can operate without the child e.g. servers and switches or switches and routers. The server can operate without the switch - you can turn it on and run applications, It may not be able to communicate with anything else if the connection to the switch is lost but it the server still working. it also allows you to create reverse relationships.
David Borojevic
Frequent Visitor

Re: Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches

Hi David,

We customised the Relationship types a fair bit and use "Uses" and "Depends on" etc carefully. eg. App1 might "use" App2 but if the other App2 is down App1 is still available (maybe a little degraded?). But if App3 "Depends" on App2 then when App2 is down then App3 is unavailable.

A server would "Depend on" the network switch it connects to (unless you have LAN redundancy in which case "Connects to" would suffice).

Certainly, if you think you might try and use the CMDB to provide availability reports then taking care with relationship types might be worthwhile.

We do use Parent and Child but usually for things like a Cluster - the Virtual node is the Parent and the Nodes the Children.

Or a Business System is a Parent with The Underlying apps as Children?

But what we do isn't necessarily correct but maybe these ideas help?

Regular Collector

Re: Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches


Thank-you very much for the suggestions.

I think we will use the "connect to" relationship.

My only question is how could I document which port it is plugged into?

David Borojevic
Frequent Visitor

Re: Relatiohships for Server to routers/switches


We don't do this (yet?). If you really want to then you would need to either

- create a custom field "Switch Port" and put on the Server form (won't allow multiples)

or (a more theoretically correct approach)

- create every port as CI's (these could be children of the Switch.

Did you know that there is a CI Creation wizard that makes the repetitive creation of things like ports quicker. Also some switch management tools might be able to make the port CIs as well.

Over to someone who currently does put switch ports in as CIs.....
//Add this to "OnDomLoad" event