16 Replies Latest reply on Aug 17, 2018 4:06 AM by milan.hulik

    Assets duplicating in WHD.... this is not good

    csmith@linnproducts.net

      I am seeing assets duplicating, and attributes being mixed among the duplicates, making it really hard to identify what is what.  I've been trying to work with tech support on determining what is happening, and it sounds like the program uses a device's IP address as a unique identifier.  They want me to set my DHCP lease time longer.  Not really a good option for me, and they are dodging the question of how to fix the duplicate/mixed assets I now have.  I'm getting pretty bummed about this very rapidly.

       

      Anyone else run into this?  And why on earth would they use the IP ADDRESS to uniquely identify a network asset in a DHCP environment???

        • Re: Assets duplicating in WHD.... this is not good
          csmith@linnproducts.net

          After working with SW tech support for a bit, I have arrived at the conclusion that there is a major bug in this software.  I have many assets in my database with duplicate entries, I have assets with attributes that are no longer correct and/or crossed up with other assets, and I have assets that are missing entirely.  Serial numbers are now listed as the wrong make/model, associated with the wrong user, etc.  My asset database, and presumably any ticket history per asset that I now have, are compromised.  I have to physically verify my inventory again and reassociate machines with users as necessary.

           

          The problem seems to stem from a flaw in the manner in which the IP address is used in conjunction with other data to determine the ID of the machine.  If a device's IP address happens to change, as will be the case in a DHCP environment, some asset attributes appear to follow the IP address, while other attributes appear to follow either the asset ID number assigned by WHD or possibly the MAC address.  Whatever is happening, it definitely is not right and my asset database is trashed.

           

          I have asked that the case be escalated and will update here when I learn more.

           

          Is anyone else having such issues?

          • Re: Assets duplicating in WHD.... this is not good
            b3bt459

            Does this only affect assets that get updated via WMI?   I have 22 locations, 2000 devices.  I've noticed the duplication in devices where the site is updated via WMI.  Will my inventory be intact for those sites not updated with WMI?

            • Re: Assets duplicating in WHD.... this is not good
              connorwa

              We just discovered this bug in our asset database, which is now largely useless in terms of being able to identify who has what and where.  This is a major bug.  It's been documented in at least the last two revisions.  Here's the thread from 2016: Re: WMI Asset Discovery Problems where mark.dangelo also commented.

               

              Why isn't this a priority to fix?  Suggesting that people go out and spend more money to buy either another Solarwinds product or a completely separate product is just irresponsible. (I work for a small state agency with budget limitations.  This is not a conversation I will look forward to having with our CFO.)  It's like the having the email engine continue to rely on TLS 1.0.  It's a major, basic flaw and not fixing it in favor of adding additional features is, in my opinion, developer malpractice and unethical.

               

              Why yes, I am angry.  I have a staff of three, we have some major projects going on and now my team needs to take a couple of days to generate a clean inventory and (cross-fingers) re-import and then continue to use the product with one of the major features disabled.  How would you feel?

               

              So, any plans on fixing this for 2.6?

              --

              Connor W. Anderson

              Chief Information Officer

              Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

              1+971-235-8214

                • Re: Assets duplicating in WHD.... this is not good
                  milan.hulik

                  Won't be in 12.6 but it's currently planned for the next release.  Here's the issue.

                  Current logic when the WMI discovery finds an asset:

                  Is there an asset in WHD DB, that has serialNumber AND ipAddress AND hostname AND macAddress the same?
                       if not, is there an asset in WHD DB, that has ipAddress AND hostname AND macAddress the same?
                            if not, is there an asset in WHD DB, that has ipAddress and macAddress the same?
                                 if not, is there an asset in WHD DB, that has hostname and macAddress the same?
                                      if not, is there an asset in WHD DB, that has macAddress the same?

                  Within each of those steps there is an assumption that the required attributes are available (are non-null).
                       If one of the fields is = null, logic goes to next step.
                       If any of the steps return a search result, the resulting asset is updated with new values.
                       If none of those steps return a result, then a new asset is created.

                  You see, that current implementation focuses on MAC address.

                  So if your DHCP server gives your laptop a different IP, logic should go to the hostname/macAddress combination and update the IP address on the existing asset. Not sure, why it is not happening, might be a bug, that we'll need to resolve.

                  Another examples:
                  There are servers with 2 NICs and our WHD will detect them as 2 separate assets and creates dupliace.
                  Your laptop is connected to WiFi one day and to Ethernet the other day. WMI thinks it's 2 separate devices and creates duplicate.
                  So I am also thinking to make the bold parameters configurable, so you can fine-tune the WMI logic the way you like. Any thoughts around this approach?