This post explores the appropriate approach for modeling virtual servers hosting applications within the LeanIX Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM) tool, specifically focusing on the transition from v3 to v4 metamodel.
Scenario:
- On-premise application (ABC) resides on virtual servers (SRV123, SRV456).
- Servers have the same OS (Windows Server 2019) but distinct purposes and software (SRV123: web application server with IIS 10.0, SRV456: database server with SQL Server 2019).
- Hardware can be either shared (single physical server) or dedicated (separate Lenovo ThinkSystem SR650 rack servers).
Challenge:
The current v4 metamodel lacks a clear way to represent these virtual servers. Here's why:
- They are not Applications.
- Standard IT Component subtypes don't capture their specific nature.
- Relations with other IT Components to depict hardware/software composition are absent.
- The v3 Tech Platform fact sheet, designed for this purpose, is no longer present in v4 due to its strategic shift towards Objectives, Initiatives, and Business Capabilities.
Question:
Given the prevalence of this use case, how can we effectively model virtual (or physical) servers hosting applications in LeanIX v4?
Possible Solutions:
-
Extend IT Component Fact Sheet:
- Introduce new subtypes or relations to describe hardware/software composition of virtual servers.
-
Continue using v3 Tech Platform (Optional):
- Maintain the v3 Tech Platform fact sheet alongside v4 Application, IT Component, and Platform fact sheets.
-
Create Custom Fact Sheet:
- Develop a new fact sheet type specifically for virtual servers, but this deviates from the standard v4 metamodel.
-
No Modeling:
- Disregard virtual servers under the assumption that LeanIX is not a Configuration Management Database (CMDB) and focus solely on applications. However, this approach overlooks a critical architectural element.
Discussion:
The ideal solution should balance accuracy and adherence to the v4 metamodel. Extending the IT Component fact sheet or using the v3 Tech Platform (if permitted) seem like the most viable options. Custom fact sheets can be considered, but require careful evaluation against potential compatibility issues. Skipping the modeling altogether ignores a crucial element of the infrastructure.
Conclusion:
Further discussion and potential input from LeanIX support are necessary to determine the most suitable approach for modeling virtual servers for applications within the v4 metamodel.
