Miss the September Service Management Office Hours - Online Chat? Check out what you missed below and be sure to join us in October for the next session!
from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Hi Everyone - We'll be starting in just a few minutes.from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: OK - Ready for questions!from Jeff to Everyone: Good %PartOfDayGreeting%, Everyone.from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Light crowd today...any questions for us?from Jeff to Everyone: I am looking for documentation on the differences between BOXI and Jaspersoft in terms of creating and maintaining metadata like the BOXI Universe, so we can create business friendly filtersfrom Jeff to Everyone: Is this something CA will be expanding in reporting in Jaspersoft?from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Jeff - we dont really have any documentation on the "differences" specifically in regards to BOXI vs. Jaspersoft. THere are many differences, for example, Jasper does not use a universe. Currently Jasper connects to the object layer (domsrvr) of SDM by way of a custom jdbc driver.from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Jeff - as for the expansion of Jaspersoft - we have transitioned to Jasper as the main reporting engine for service management products.from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Ready for more questions!from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Jeff - an additional note - back to the idea if a "universe" - Jasper does have something similar called a "domain" however we do not currently ship a domain with the product.from Jeff to Everyone: @Jon, thanks. That's as much information as I've been able to find as well. In BOXI, CA created a core Universe and we were able to add Aliases in SDM so it could be seen and passed to the Object Layer in BOXI. Does Jaspersoft use the Alias in the 'domain'?from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Anymore questions out there?from lisa cummins to Everyone: @Jeff - We do have a free WBT that you might want to check out: 99BIS10010 CA Business Intelligence Reporting Transition from SAP BusinessObjects to TIBCO Jaspersoft 100, it only 20 minutes and here's the link: http://marketplace.ca.com/education/99bis10010.html from stephanie to Everyone: what all issues have people found with CP3from stephanie to Everyone: does anyone have xflow in productionfrom Jeff to Everyone: In SDM, AA architecture with EEM, PAM, CABI, and xFlow. Do you see any issues co-location EEM with PAM?from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Be sure to join us for the CA Service Management Community Webcast - Process Automation in the Real World – September 27th 11:00AM ET - https://communities.ca.com/events/3105from Paul Coccimiglio to Everyone: @Jeff - are you referring to having EEM and ITPAM installed on the same server?from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Stephanie - I cant think of anything specific in regards to problems with CP3. We do have cusotmers using Xflow in production and so far the response has generally been pretty good. There will be some fixes for Xflow coming in the somewhat near future which will fix some things as well. Did you have any specific questions regarding CP3?from Jeff to Everyone: @Stepahnie. I just did my first CP3 in a clean environemnt last night and the only issues was when I tried to have it do the Automatica Manadory Post-Install Tasks, it failed and I had to confirm/complete manually. They aren't bad.from Jeff to Everyone: @Paul. Yes. I would like to have them on the same server.from stephanie to Everyone: we have not finished testing in test environment but hit upon a template issue that we probably would not have tested. but CA just provided a fix it and works now.from Paul Coccimiglio to Everyone: @Jeff - thanks for the confirmation. For performance reasons, I would not suggest having EEM and ITPAM on the same server. Based on user load, both EEM and ITPAM can be quite resource intensive.from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Stephanie - there have been a few post CP3 fixes produced for specific problems, however there are not many.from stephanie to Everyone: do you know what the post fixes fix?from Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Stephanie- I am not sure of them off hand, we dont currently have a list available to be honest.from stephanie to Everyone: if we had not been testing something else we would not have found the template issuefrom Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Stephanie - if you are seeing any unexpected behavior during your testing of CP3, please open a support case with us so that we can look into it with you.from stephanie to Everyone: we are good for nowfrom stephanie to Everyone: is anyone seeing very slow performance in ITPAM?from stephanie to Everyone: we are on 4.3 hf01from stephanie to Everyone: this problem has followed us from 4.1 to 4.3from Paul Coccimiglio to Everyone: @Stephanie - ITPAM performance can be impacted by a number of factors. Please apply the latest 4.3 SP01 service pack. If there are still issues, please open a CA Suppor ticket so ITPAM support can be engagedfrom stephanie to Everyone: we are on sp01from stephanie to Everyone: we had ticket open when on 4.1 but never really could find the issue and thought 4.3 would correct issue. new environment, new db server on 2012 SQLfrom Paul Coccimiglio to Everyone: @Stephanie - you orginally indicated HF01. If you indeed have SP01 applied, then please contact CA Support.from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Anymore questions out there? If not we'll wrap up for today. Thank you for participating today and please join us back here in October!from Jeff to Everyone: @Paul. Thanks. I don't think any of the other servers were good candiates in terms of impacts due to rolling maintenance and neither EEM nor PAM require restarts because of an AA mainenance. It's hard to justfy yet another server for EEM.from stephanie to Everyone: any plans to be able to convert boxi reports to jasperreportsfrom Jon Israel (CA) to Everyone: @Stephanie - unfortunately there is no way to convert reports currently. Any custom reports would need to be rebuilt using Jasper Studio.from Paul Coccimiglio to Everyone: @Stephanie - CA Services can be contacted regarding custom Japser report writingfrom Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: OK Everyone - Thank you for participating today and please join us back here in October!
from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: Thanks again everyone!from Jorge Mario to Everyone: Hifrom Jorge Mario to Everyone: I have a question.from Jeff to Everyone: @Lisa> Thanks for the link!from Chris Hackett (CA) to Everyone: @Jorge - Please go ahead and post it as a question on the community so it can be answered there: https://communities.ca.com/community/ca-service-management/contentfrom Jorge Mario to Everyone: 1) Today, the EEM tool can be integrated with multiple AD. When one of these ADs have problems, EEM don’t win perform authentication of users and we are forced to shut down access to problematic AD. When we open a ticket with CA, we received information that authentication is sequential (The EEM valid in all ADs. He does not have a validation to ignore the AD that is disabled or problems). Is there a plan for implementing this fix?