Thanks for the link. I've already done some reading on TechNet about SCOM 2012 Authoring. I appreciate the encouragement to learn; at this point based on the mild research I've done so far I already formed specific questions that I'm looking answers for. When I get more time for a deeper look, I'll do some more learning; will spin up a test environment too. Now though by the end of the week I need to give HelpDesk a LiveMap with some monitors that have been tested for a few days.
I'm trying to "hack" the Service Template for one because for the time being I will probably end up using it, and secondly I hope that understanding how the automatic template works will help me understand all the elements involved and relationship between them. From reading articles and forum posts I keep running into usage of terms "Management Pack" and "Class" in the same context; so I need to understand if a Class can exist without an MP; since the Template seems to instantiate the Class but does not create a Management Pack. Also in terms of the Template itself: if I tweak the resultant elements, (i.e.: add some new monitors, delete some unused monitors and rules) may I potentially have an issue for example with deleting if needed. That is - is there some special relationship between the Template object and the elements it generated, in a way that they cannot be deleted independently from the Template without breaking that relationship? Sorry to look for a shortcut; treat me as an end-user for now :) Thanks - A On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Holman <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d recommend you review this: > > > > https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee957010.aspx > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *RKDTOO > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:56 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: SV: [msmom] msmom Windows Service MP Template Wizard Vs. > Basic Service Unit Monitor > > > > Thanks Kevin. Graduate? :) I have only began wetting my feet with SCOM > last week. Besides, I don't have access to create classes; I'm only looking > to monitor some things in my VMware environment; but I do want to set it up > as gracefully as possible, so I will see if I can ask for some more > Authoring access from our SCOM admins. > > So from your reply and the link, am I to understand that a Management Pack > and a Class are interchangeable terms? That is to ask - does creating a > class always involves creating an MP? What is the relationship in this > sense? I'm still struggling with terminology and relationships; for example > in the Override Summery window the first column is has a heading of "Class" > holding values like "Rule" or "Monitor" - confusing, inconsistent even. > > Thanks, > > Arkady > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Kevin Holman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yes – you CAN do just that. > > > > Or – you can graduate up the scale of MP authoring and make intentional > classes for your apps, and stop using templates. > > > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/kevinholman/archive/2014/11/12/using-mpauthor-to-create-a-class-discover-and-monitor-a-service.aspx > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *RKDTOO > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 5:26 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: SV: [msmom] msmom Windows Service MP Template Wizard Vs. > Basic Service Unit Monitor > > > > ... So - taking a deeper look into using the Windows Service Template it > creates the following: > > - A new object (instance of Windows Service class) to be used as target > for its monitors > > - 4 Monitors (one of which is inhered from the Windows Service class and > is Disabled by Override for everything) > > - 6 Rules > > - 6 Tasks > > - 5 Attributes > > - All the applicable Override for Monitors, Discovery and Rules. > > Now every time I use the Template to monitor one service all of the above > are being created and instantiated. > > > > Now If I want to monitor say 5 - 10 services on dozens or hundreds of > servers it makes sense; but if my situation is reverse, that is - I want to > monitor about a dozen related services on only one computer, it may be kind > of and overkill to create 12 or so classes with all these duplicate > elements. > > So I was wondering if I can use this newly created Class and use it as > target for my manually created Unit Basic Service Monitors; the Class > already has all the properties of a Windows Service and it's discovery is > already scoped to the required server. And for my case it would suffice to > have a number of related services being monitored by a self-contained > object of a Windows Service class, which can be placed into Maintenance > Mode without affecting other Windows Server monitors. > > Would this be a recommended way of doing things? Does anyone see any > pitfalls in this approach? > > Thanks, > > Arkady > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Henrik Andersen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > As you say, the impact of using the template is next to nothing (if any at > all) compared with the basic monitor wizard. > > > > /Henrik > > > > *Fra:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *På vegne af *RKDTOO > *Sendt:* 28. marts 2015 00:02 > *Til:* [email protected] > *Emne:* Re: SV: [msmom] msmom Windows Service MP Template Wizard Vs. > Basic Service Unit Monitor > > > > Thanks for the reply, and advice. > > Indeed, when my SCOM engineer instructed me to use the Basic Service > Monitor approach they also said to use Windows Server as a target because > that's where they defined an Agrigate Monitor Rollup for my custom > monitors. We created these service monitors disabled and then applied > Overrides to enable them only for the server or group of servers; that's > how we avoid the issue of discovering services on all the servers. However > my issue of not being able to separate these monitors from the Server > object remains. > > So as fast as using the Template - I was told by our SCOM guys that some > time ago a Microsoft consultant recommended against using it in favor of > the Basic Service Monitor aproach. They don't remember why, posibly because > of the overhead it creates. But again, if I'm not using the Performance > monitors that are generated, and am only using the Running state, how much > more of an impact it has on the system than Basic Service Monitor? I wonder. > > On Mar 27, 2015 5:19 PM, "Henrik Andersen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Greetings to you and welcome on board. > > > > > > > > You are correct in, that if you choose something like the windows server > for target for your service monitor, you will put the entire server in > maintenance mode. So don’t do that. If you do the management pack will be > distributed to every server and theres no need for that (except if the > service is present on all servers, of cause) > > > > > > > > Like in many other situations, if something is easy to setup, you get > more than you actually need. And that’s how it is with the template. > > > > > > > > Another approach is write your own service discovery. Even if you do it > in ‘raw’ xml, it’s very easy(lots of samples around the Internet) or have a > look at Silect AuthorMP It’s free and is easy to use and the management > pack it creates is quite decent. > > > > > > > > Happy authoring! > > > > > > > > /henrik > > > > > > > > Fra: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] På vegne af RKDTOO > > Sendt: 27. marts 2015 20:36 > > Til: [email protected] > > Emne: [msmom] msmom Windows Service MP Template Wizard Vs. Basic Service > Unit Monitor > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > New to SCOM. Trying to understand the difference between creating > Monitoring for Windows Service via the Windows Service MP Template Wizard > and creating a Unit Monitor of type Basic Service Monitor. > > > > It seems that (along with additional ability to monitor Performance) the > former creates [an instance of?] Basic Service Monitor within its own newly > created class (or object? still shaky on terminology) making it a Monitor > Target of this Basic Service Monitor; and the latter creates only Basic > Monitor targeting existing class\object. Please confirm or correct if > that's accurate. > > > > The main benefit of the Template for me is that I am able to drill down > to the Service Monitor in a Diagram View and (for example) place only it in > Maintenance Mode, while still monitoring the rest of the Windows > Server/Computer object; as opposed to in the case of having only Basic > Service Monitor manually created under say Windows Server target I am > unable to operate on it separately and am forced to place the whole Windows > Server object into Maintenance Mode. Also, a product like SAVISION Live > Maps is unable to "see" Basic Service Monitor as an element to be dragged > onto a map; whereas it is able to "see" the class\object created by the > Template as a separate element. > > > > Now if the above is more or less true, than does it mean that if I want > to monitor say 5 Windows Services in a way where I am able to operate on > them independently of the Windows Server object - they each must be defined > as an object of its own class? > > > > Observation: After creating Windows Service Monitor via the Template > Wizard I ended up with 2 "Service Running State" monitors. One - Inherited > From "Windows Service" of Management Pack "Windows Service Library"; and > the second - Not inherted and is of the Management Pack which I defined as > destination MP during one of the configuration steps. I also targeted a > specific Group to narrow down the scope of the monitor. The first monitor > which is inherited from the Windows Service has a number of "Enable" > parameter Overrides applied to it targets of which include the object > itself and the DNS name of a server contained within the targeted Group - > that is to say this monitor is "not monitoring"; why does it get inherited > or instantiated at all? > > > > And lastly does running Windows Service Monitors created via the > Template Wizard have a greater performance impact on the SCOM system, as > opposed to Basic Service Monitors created manually, considering that I am > not using the Performance counters of the former? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Make note of my new Email address: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Make note of my new Email address: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > -- > > Make note of my new Email address: [email protected] > > > > -- Make note of my new Email address: [email protected]
