CI vs Asset

Hi there. We're working on importing all of our servers into TD as either CI's or Assets. I seem to remember that one of these objects has limitations. We need to be able to, if possible, link tickets to the servers, and add them as related objects to each other. I'll also be creating either a CI or Asset called Application and I'll need to link servers to their applications. The Applications will also need to be able to link to each other if possible, to represent an interface between the two.

Can you tell me what limitations that the CI vs. Asset objects have in this respect? Any recommendations on how to accomplish it?

asset configuration-item

Asked by Kay Brewer on Thu 12/5/24 12:10 PM

Answers (3)

Mark Sayers Thu 12/5/24 1:49 PM

Hello Kay,

CIs were the more limited type of object just because they have fewer standard fields and thus out of the box less data can be tracked about them. I'll have our process team chime in though with recommendations based on what you've provided here.

Sincerely,

Mark Sayers

Sr Support Consultant, CS

1 of 1 users found this helpful.

Thank you, Mark, I'll wait a bit before accepting your answer to see if your process team has some additional info that will help. - Kay Brewer Thu 12/5/24 2:19 PM

David Tod Thu 12/5/24 1:04 PM

This is broadly what we're doing.

CI's seem to be much more limited than Assets, so we went with Assets, including for applications/systems.

Custom relationships are not visible in reporting or in the API, which we would love to see resolved.

1 of 1 users found this helpful.

Thanks for your answer! Very helpful to see what people are doing in practice. - Kay Brewer Thu 12/5/24 2:18 PM

I need to clarify since I've learned some things today about the API. Below I'm talking about iPaaS, but the underlying API is the same.

An asset can be "got" in two ways. As an asset using "get asset" but ALSO as a configuration item, using "get configuration item" - you get different data from each query with different unique IDs, i.e. An asset's CI ID is different from the Asset ID.

When you get a CI, it includes the underlying asset ID (backing ID), but if you want the relationship, you have to use the CI ID and "get CI relationship". This means that custom assets relationships ARE available, but ONLY when you are using the CI identifier. - David Tod Fri 12/6/24 2:01 PM

Thanks for clarifying, David. I'm in a bit of limbo because if I enter our servers as an Asset, I can't have a group own it. But if I enter them as a CI, I can't identify which department owns it. Things are missing from each type of record so I'm not sure what to do!

It's good to know I can get the relationship with the CI - do you know if custom fields are available in the API for assets and ci's? If so I guess I could use a custom field to try to get around the limitation of each record... - Kay Brewer Fri 12/6/24 5:31 PM

Yes, custom fields are available in the API and reporting for both. - David Tod Fri 12/6/24 5:57 PM

Mark Sayers Thu 12/5/24 2:51 PM

What you are asking for can be done with either. Relating to tickets and establishing relationships between Asset/CIs. This slide probably provides the insight you are looking for.

No feedback