4 Replies Latest reply on Nov 17, 2009 11:30 AM by epo909

    Asset Group Name limitations


      Hello all.


      It really doesn't make any sense to me, why can't Sub Asset Groups have the same name... When you think about organizing 2000 servers, you have multiple teams, multiple platforms, and you have multiple levels of asset criticality. When you dwell into what is logical, probably you will come out of an organization of this type:


      - team_web





      - team_sql





      Sad thing is that we can't have this, because group names cannot repeat. So what's the workaround? Rely only in team groups and play with asset labels to reflect the platform (something like teamweb-S-E)?


      Ok, what I really would like to do is brainstorm about asset management with MVM, given its limitation, for organizations with a lot of servers to prioritize.




        • 1. Re: Asset Group Name limitations

          Hi RD,


          Thanks for your input.  The workaround you mention, to use variations of the major asset group within the sub group, is one I think most of our customers are currently using.


          For example:


          - Development

          -- DevWindowsSystems

          -- DevUnixSystems

          - Marketing

          -- MktWindowsSystems

          -- MktUnixSystems


          Etc. etc.


          If this is something you (and other customers) feel strongly about, then I can get a Feature Modification Request (FMR) submitted to our Product Management team for consideration.  We are constantly looking for ways we can improve the usability of the product.


          Thanks again for your feedback, and I'm looking forward to hearing more.



          • 2. Re: Asset Group Name limitations

            Hi Cathy,


            Maybe this is not a problem for small networks (~2000), but when dealing with larger environments it gets really hard to maintain a concise organization of assets, on which you need to rely for asset or scan priorities. I mean, why maintain a painfull list of asset labels when you can do it using a simple group tree?


            This would be one of those features that would make the diference, and from a developer prespective there I cannot find an explanation for limiting asset groups this way. There is no sense.



            • 3. Re: Asset Group Name limitations

              Hi RD,


              Another option you may have, if you want to try it, is to use an ePO or Active Directory server to manage your assets. With MVM 6.7 and higher you can integrate with either ePO or an LDAP source like Active Directory to pick your targets for scanning.


              Using ePO allows you to take advantage of an existing ePO server within your company if you want, or you can deploy your own without bothering the other server. ePO 4.0 and 4.5 offer a VERY rich method of grouping and tagging assets with meta data that allows you to create a very rich asset management system.


              Within MVM 6.7/6.8 you can actually browse the ePO or LDAP source asset tree and pick groups of assets rather than individual IP address based assets. This is a great feature because 1) you can utilize an already existing asset management system within your organization, and 2) it gets you out of the game of having to add/delete/modify assets within a scan when you need to change a target.


              By using the asset centric scanning model with either ePO or an LDAP source like AD, you are removed from the burden of managing assets in yet another system and releases you from having to stop recurring scans to add/delete targets. By using an ePO group or tag, or an AD OU as your scan target, each time MVM syncs with that source it will automatically add/delete targets from your scheduled scans, and at scan time it will resolve those named assets to their current IP addresses.

              • 4. Re: Asset Group Name limitations

                Hello Brian.


                Thanks for your tips regarding the use of those data sources. We have an ePO DB that could be used to map tge assets, but I'm unsure if the structure (group organization) fits our needs. I can do some testing to see how to add asset owners and respective criticity.


                Best Regards,