Henrik and Kevin, thank you for the reply and info. /Fredrik
Från: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] För Kevin Holman Skickat: den 24 januari 2014 01:31 Till: [email protected] Ämne: RE: [msmom] Groups and monitors The PDF linked by Henrik is a good one. There are a few reasons why I don’t recommend using “Windows Computer” as the generic target of choice, and I do recommend using “Windows Server Operating System” in general. 1. When we target “Windows Computer” it can include client and server OS, which is often unintended. 2. Windows Computer objects get created for all sorts of reasons. AD MP discovery creates them for all DC’s – even if they don’t have agents. AEM creates them for all clients who submit crash data. Windows Clusters create them for cluster virtual name resources. All of these Windows Computer objects must be hosted by some other agent, either the RMS, management servers, or other agents. This means if you target monitoring workflows or discoveries to these – the hosting healthservice will try and run the workflows. If “remotable” is set to false in the XML for a discovery – then we will fill your event logs up with errors about trying to run a workflow but can’t because remotable is set to false. 3. Windows Server really isn’t much better in this regard (#2)…. as it is a special class and very similar to Windows Computer. Simply put – it is a worst practice, but has been “learned” over time by observed behaviors, after SCOM 2007 shipped. So if I need to pick a “generic” class to target all my custom workflows to, where I want to collect perf data, or events, etc, then I will use “Windows Server Operating System”. Both for custom workflows, and for targeting discoveries. UNLESS I am writing something that specifically applies to discovering something as a clustered instance (rarer) and then I will need to target “Windows Server” or a more specific cluster class. In general, I advise against targeting a generic class (disabled) and then enabling the workflows for a group in an override. The better practice is to create classes based on the application or role I am trying to monitor if possible, as it gives the best options for health rollups, and lowest impact to the management group from a health calculation perspective. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henrik Andersen Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:52 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [msmom] Groups and monitors He he good question, Fredrik Especially when heard from a MS person and have seen this official document from Microsoft: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh457539.aspx But it’s about the scope of monitor – read more here: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=125048 But it’s hard to say that it’s bad idea in Steve’s case – we don’t know his setup or what he wants to monitor. /Henrik From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sköld Fredrik Sent: 23. januar 2014 22:43 To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [msmom] Groups and monitors "That said, don't ever target windowsmoni computer as a generic target. Use windows server operating system. " Interesting! How come? /Fredrik 23 jan 2014 kl. 20:41 skrev "Kevin Holman" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: If monitor is in unsealed mp, and group is in another unsealed mp, they cannot reference each other. Must exist in same mp, or group mp must be sealed. Totally by design. That said, don't ever target windows computer as a generic target. Use windows server operating system. ________________________________ From: Steve Olvera<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 1/23/2014 1:27 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [msmom] Groups and monitors Okay found something quirky. I have a monitor and want to run it on a peticular group. Target is Windows computers, created own MP for monitor. When I override it for the specific group, the group is not there... but if I look for all objects of another class... the group is in there. Is that by design? How come the group shows up as a class and not in group? Thanks, Steve O.
