Kevin Holman

My feedback

  1. 257 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    18 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    I just had more customer feedback. They are impacted by this issue, when they place servers into Maintenance Mode. Their operations process is to close the alerts once the server is in MM. However, we only allow alert closure when the alert source is "healthy" and SCOM 2019 UR1 with Hotfix is blocking their ability to close alerts manually for agents that are placed into Maintenance Mode. This is just another reason why we need to be able to disable this new feature in SCOM 2019 for customers whose operations processes don't easily leverage the design change.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    This is going to be critical. Not all customers will like or benefit from this change. Many customers are happy about this - but it will be a deployment blocker to others. This must be something that can be switched on or off in Alert closure behavior - or we will break the Alert Lifecycle policy of customers who have invested deeply into integrations for alerts to ticketing systems, in my opinion.

    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
  2. 97 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    I'm curious. The concern seems to be that you "cannot run unsupported". However, ANY support for Windows Server 2008R2 expires in Jan 2020, when Server 2008/2008R2 fallas out of Extended Support. Why would you want SCOM to support an OS that has no support at all?

  3. 150 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    Agreed - these are all important areas to fix we have just overlooked.

  4. 102 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    This is VERY common and has been since SCOM 2007. I clean this up for my customers using this process. I talk about this bug here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/kevinholman/2018/05/03/deleting-and-purging-data-from-the-scom-database/

    It is a bug for sure. But it does not cause any harm. Messes up the health state views for customers who monitor those.

  5. 36 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    This would be challenging for customers who use maintenance mode. Maintenance mode is a config update. It needs to be sent IMMEDIATELY to get agents in MM as fast as possible.

    I'd argue a better request would be to help make config less impactful when a change is made, so agents can get config as soon as possible, without slowing down the management group.

  6. 13 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback » General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    Are you actually seeing CPU impact here in practice, or in theory? Because the simple writing of an event is VERY low CPU impact. Like difficult to measure, low.

  7. 484 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    Thanks for your votes. We are doing it in phases. First phase will include Install/Remove MPs, change overrides and the next phase will include Admin settings. Please fill this survey if you would like try your hands on the feature earlier than others and share your feedback.
    https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=v4j5cvGGr0GRqy180BHbR8_G7TnWWL9AgnUEG-odf9BURFdOUlYxOE00WjNMVjE2UlNSVjRaVDFMTC4u

    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
  8. 217 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
  9. 124 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    I was shocked that this has a synch time. I gave feedback on this workflow when it first came out back in SCOM 2007R2. In general - I recommend disabling the rule and the monitor which both run this script, as it is very noisy for script failures and collects too much perf data in my opinion. That said - I agree - we should not use a default synch time on script datasources unless there is a VERY good reason, as we create resource depletion on virtual hosts when we do this.

  10. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General Operations Manager Feedback  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
  11. 102 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    This ability is already present. However, it is very complicated to use. We have to write a custom developed MP with Group Populator module, then leverage an LDAP module to query AD for the group membership, and reconcile that with what is already in SCOM otherwise it will bomb out. This should be a simple UI to query AD, get a group, then SCOM UI handles the rest.

  12. 52 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Kevin Holman supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kevin Holman commented  · 

    We should provide a UIpageset on the first page that says "basic" or "advanced" and then keep it stupid simple for basic users, then expose the ID's for advanced users who want access to these ID's without using MOMUIGenerated_______

Feedback and Knowledge Base