(imported topic written by MaherBA)
Hello All,
Please do you know why a non master operator can’t manage all computers and BES clients even if we set it to manage All computers when we create it??
Only master one can manage all PCs!!?
We can specify roles using sites subscriptions, but can us do that by assigning management right to all PCs and not to a part to a non master operator ??
(imported comment written by vincent.h)
Are your non master operators assigned any roles? if so, create the computer assignments under the role and the list of computers should appear in that user’s console. Also, when you make a computer assignment, how are you doing that? Are you using groups? retrieved properties? Make sure that group or property is actually populated with some computers. If not, then the assignment will come up empty of course.
Same thing if you are assigning computers on a operator by operator basis.
(imported comment written by MaherBA)
Hi, thnx for your response.
But it seem like you haven’t stand my question!
I assigned all computers management to one role and i assigned this role to my operator.
My question was why i haven’t the right number of PCs assigned to this role and operator, managed computers number is always lower than the total number!! Should i wait until all computers report this assignment ??
(imported comment written by vincent.h)
MetalMan,
Your original question wasn’t clear but I think I understand what you are asking for now.
When you create a new role or operator, that assignment gets pushed out to the agents and each agent will evaluate it to determine if it satisfies the criteria. ie. if the endpoint should be assigned to that new role or operator. If the computer is offline, then it cannot evaluate this new criteria and as such will not report back to the server and will not be assigned to that role or operator.
As a result, the list of computers that will be assigned to the role or operator will not match the total number of computers listed in your console. If all computers are online and reporting in, then the numbers should match. If they do not, then further investigation is required but its likely the former scenario that is causing this discrepancy.
We are having this same problem, however, almost all of our bes client computers are online and reporting. Out of 10 operators assigned to the “OM Role”, only half of the operators are able to manage all or most of the online-bes-computers. 5 of the operators only see about 1/3 of the online bes computers that are reporting and are assigned in accordance with the “OM Role”. I have had to explicitly assign “all computers” to the operator in order for the computers to show up.
If you continue to experience issues with this, I would recommend contacting IBM Support:
How are the computers assigned to the Role (specifically)? By Group, or by Property?
One issue I’m seeing in the 9.5.4 console, is that if I assign Groups to a Role by Property, and then update the definition of the Property, there is no indication on the role that an old version of the Property relevance is being used. When the Property is used to assign Group membership, and the property gets updated, the Group’s display changes to “Property X (old version)” but Roles don’t show the same.
If you’ve updated the definition of the property, you may need to edit the Role, remove the property, and re-add it to pick up the new version of the property’s relevance.
Is the Property or the Group that you’re using for the computer assignment to the role something that’s expected to change a lot? When troubleshooting my problem with older property versions, I’ve examined the “Subscription for role X.fxf” file for the action that’s generated when you edit a role, and it looks like the role subscription action is configured to reapply 10 times; so if the computer changes your targetting group/property result more than ten times, I’m not sure it would resubscribe to the role ?
