SCOM Reviews

We use the product in our Windows servers. 

The tool helps to monitor Windows servers. It offers alerts from a central location. 

SCOM needs to improve its usability. 

I like that the solution is one of the few tools that can seamlessly manage multiple applications or servers. Some other monitoring tools struggle with that.

The tool's deployment is neither easy nor complex. I rate it a five out of ten. It typically takes about a day or so to deploy the infrastructure. After that, deploying the agents depends on how you do it, and multiple methods are available.

We require only about two people for deployment, at most. If you include me, that's four. Depending on the job classification, you need server admins and maybe a network specialist. Someone with a good understanding of computers who can log on to a computer or server and navigate the admin console is also needed.

The tool helps us avoid costs by allowing us to use transactions which don't cost anything to build. It's the next best thing to having a help desk when a user reports a problem.

I would recommend the tool for Windows servers and not for Linux ones. I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We mainly use SCOM for logging purposes and mounting configurations. It alerts us when any services have a problem. It really depends on the products that are being used in the backend. There are different kinds of virtual machines and different kinds of environments like VMware and Hyper-V.

One customer deploys the solution on a hyper conversion input service, and two customers deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution could be used in any sized company. It's been used in the manufacturing, IT, and telecom sectors.

The monitoring features are the most valuable. We have seen a major benefit from that so far.

There could be more integration of SIM in the solution.

The solution is stable.

Previous versions were not very stable. There were some issues while we were configuring the hierarchy.

The scalability is of medium difficulty.

Overall, support is not great but it's not bad. Microsoft's standard support is good. Sometimes, there aren't specific engineers who can help us with SCOM when we have an issue. A knowledge-based environment would help us more.

I would rate technical support 3.5 out of 5.

We have also used ManageEngine OpManager to monitor the environment and Solar Wind. 

They don't support integration of multiple products. Considering the stability and scalability, Microsoft is a better option. It depends on the use cases.

I would rate the initial setup 4.5 out of 5.

It's a complex process. When we deploy any other solution, it comes with a built-in SQL database. With SCOM, it was more of a complicated process.

If it doesn't have a hierarchy, then it takes about one hour. It's a standard installation. If there are hierarchies, like multiple site deployments, then it would take about three to five hours.

I don't know the exact cost because it's managed by our sales team, but Microsoft is on the higher side.

I would rate SCOM as 8 out of 10. 

It depends on how the customer is using the product. My advice is that if you're interested in SCOM, you need to consider the environment, the business case, and what kind of business you are running.

We leverage every component of SCOM. The solution uses monitoring mechanisms to send alerts and notifications for down systems or problematic trouble issues. We use it for all of that. We have dashboards up, customized management packs, and monitors for both Windows and Linux. We use SNMP traps to pull in information forward network devices that are in the enterprise. We use it for everything.

Being able to make and customize management packs and send out notifications is very valuable. That's the bread and butter of the solution. That's what we use it for.

The SCOM dashboards have room for improvement. They've been improving them in iterations slowly and surely. Third-party tools have had to be created to make SCOM management pack creation more efficient and effective. However, this weighs down the application as it just adds a resource requirement, which is ballooning the size of the necessary storage and all that for essentially substandard components. I would suggest either using the dashboard and management packs to their full potential, so we don't have to go out to third-party vendors to install additional features, or allow them to be truncated during installation so that we're not wasting resources.

I've worked with SCOM for about ten years now.

SCOM's stability is pretty solid. 

SCOM has been scaling pretty nicely for us, which is what it's intended to do. We do have plans to increase usage. It's constantly evolving, developing utility. All new systems go onto it. It's not shrinking anytime soon.

The tech support is good. Our company has Premier Plus in place. They're responsive.

This is the only one I've used.

The initial setup is complex. It requires Microsoft's support in many cases. It takes about a month or two to get SCOM up and running and fleshed out so that you have all the configurations. For example, when you're migrating from '12 to '19, you have to look at everything that's already in place and then try to migrate it. Whereas if you're starting fresh, then you have to start one at a time looking at each component and building it out. They're too different. 

We deployed in-house, but we did leverage Microsoft.

The solution is provided by Microsoft for free but there are operating costs. Those would be the many hours necessary to prune it. We have a contract for support. If that didn't exist, then the cost of the solution would include paying for support. Because it is a complex system, I will contact support for assistance. I also have the general resource requirements just to have the systems up. This includes several databases and front-end servers running. However, added together, all of these costs are minimal.

We did not evaluate any other options before landing on SCOM. The reason for this is that SCOM is a Microsoft solution and we have a significant Microsoft presence in our environment, it's actually provided gratis by Microsoft, so it was just a logical utility to leverage.

My advice to others looking into implementing this product is to make sure that you have a solid understanding of SQL commands, statements, databases, and Visual Studio. This will help you understand how to make the management packs more effective. I rate this solution a ten out of ten.

SCOM is used as a monitoring solution for managing Windows-based IT infrastructures within our organization.

SCOM has helped us to monitor all the VMs in our environment, especially the Windows servers. This is our scoop, we monitor all the VMs that have OS Windows servers. The best part of SCOM is that we have a major comeback with it and can apply something that could act as a counteraction. Once an action appears, there is a counteraction in order to avoid any interruption to the service. This is the best way the solution has improved our organization.

The solution provides a full insight report for all the VMs in our environment. SCOM also tells us whether the VMs are healthy or not, as well as provides brief information about the management console in each site and the agents under these management consoles.

There is no room for update or enhancement in SCOM because Microsoft has retired it as an on-prem solution and moved it to the cloud. The current version will be the last on-prem given Microsoft's push to move all their solutions to the cloud.

The GI is difficult to work with and the reporting servers are also difficult. Another dimension that makes SCOM difficult is the number of components. The reporting server, the database, and the two components of the database (operational and warehouse) are all difficult to work with. This is why SCOM is a difficult solution to implement, configure, and troubleshoot.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is not very stable. Sometimes we find alerts in the event viewer that we don't understand. we have to spend hours trying to figure out what the events mean. Sometimes we have to request support from Microsoft engineers, who may take a long time to respond, and the case may take longer than expected to resolve.

I give the stability a six out of ten.

The solution is scalable. We currently have six members, but we should add management consultants depending on our workload. We need to go through the Microsoft documents first. We need to calculate and prepare for our Virtual Machine (VM). We need to identify the storage, memory, and CPUs for our VM. This is important because we don't want to lose our solution or have bad performance. A bad performance will affect our environment. We also need to make sure the latency is less than 12 milliseconds. This is important because the management console needs to communicate with the database. If the latency is more than 12 milliseconds, it will affect the outcome of these records and the management console will be unhealthy.

Previously we used SIM by SolarWinds.

The solution is difficult to implement and troubleshoot. Sometimes we need the prerequisites for a task, but we encounter issues that we don't understand or that are not reasonable.

The first time we deployed the solution, there were three of us, but now that we have more experience, we can do it on our own without the requirement of additional people. 

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have not seen a return on investment. We have a lot of latency issues with the solution that is related to the network coverage between the sites. We have ten data centers using a management console but our database is centralized in the capital of Cairo. 

I give the solution a six out of ten.

First-time users of SCOM need to be well prepared. There should not be too many management consoles. The SCOM gateway can be used as a way to transfer data to the management console, and the management console will have low latency so it can act as the management console for these sites. It will handle the queuing for the data through the centralized database. This is the best practice given to me by the Microsoft team because of an issue that occurred in our environment that took some time to be resolved.

We are using SCOM for service monitoring integrated with some third-party dashboard. It is our end-to-end service monitoring solution.  

The feature I like most about SCOM is that it is easy-to-use. I find it very user-friendly. I also like the knowledge base which it has. You can find the resolution to questions or issues directly within the SCOM itself. It will alert you with a recommendation of what you need to do at the same time. This sort of self-diagnosis or prompting is one of the great values you get from SCOM compared to other solutions.  

The dashboard is one place where the product can be improved. We finally needed to get a customized dashboard from the NOC (Network Operation Center) team. The dashboard that was included with the product just did not do what we wanted it to do.  

I am not sure, exactly, what should be included with future releases. There are already a lot of features there in the product. The main thing I can suggest is that Microsoft also provides management packs for monitoring third-party products with the product. If that were included with SCOM, that would make the product even greater. For example, to monitor an Oracle database, you need to look around to get a management pack separately. It could just be included instead.  

You can monitor any non-Microsoft product with Microsoft SCOM if you have the management pack for that product. You need to purchase that management pack. You can get them sometimes from Microsoft and other times from the third-party vendor.  

I have been using System Center Operations Manager (SCOM) from Microsoft for almost five years.  

From the time we did the configuration, the product has been stable. It may be different in other cases. It really depends on the design you implement. If you want to add functionality, you can add it. It depends on the business. If you want Apache or you want a singular-server implementation you configure it as you need to. If it is configured correctly it should remain stable.  

SCOM is scalable. We do not have an issue with the number of users or with the number of machines and the devices we are monitoring. It does not have any issues in that respect.  

We support the product with a system admin team which is the only group that deals with SCOM directly for maintenance issues. Right now, the team is only five people. Even there, these five people do not use the product on a daily basis. The configuration is something that you do one time if you do it correctly. There is monitoring, which is done by the NOC team and that is ongoing. 

In case some maintenance is required like a change in business requirements or addition of services, then the SCOM team will do it. This does not happen all the time. But monitoring is done by another team separate from the maintenance.  

We have not had to use the Microsoft support since maybe four or five years ago. It was during the time we were doing the implementation. We had a few calls with them — maybe two or three calls — for some configuration-related questions. That was all. It was handled efficiently and we got the answers we needed. But we have not had to use the support team since.  

I have had the opportunity to use other products in this category. Not at the current organization, but in other organizations before this. One was WhatsUp Gold. If I were to compare these two solutions, SCOM has more advantages and is really the better product.  

It is actually pretty simple to do the setup. I think it really can be implemented on the same day that you get it. You can do the complete installation and configuration in one day.  

But adding services, that takes time. It depends on the business and your scope, what you need to add, what you need to configure when it is added. I consider that as a separate part because it is not the fault of the product that you have additional requirements. The additions made for service monitoring depends on the customer, the requirements that they have, and what they need to add.  

The installation was done by our company with an in-house team. We did not need help from the vendor or an integrator except for some basic questions.  

We do maintenance as required also in-house and we handle the upgrades from one version to another version. All those maintenance details are managed by the system admin team.  

If you compare the pricing of SCOM to some solutions now available — like ManageEngine — I think it is a bit more expensive. But at that price, you get more in Microsoft System Center. SCOM is a bundled product, it is not only SCOM. You get a complete suite of Microsoft System Center products. There are five products in the bundle. There are no additional costs for SCOM itself and everything is included in the license. The only additional costs that you may have is in getting management packs.  

On the other hand, open-source solutions are available that are mature or maturing and they are very good. They may pose a better solution because they are free.  

My advice to people who are looking for a solution like SCOM would actually be to advise them to move from licensed software to open-source. You can go to Nagios or most other open-source products and they do the same thing as SCOM. There is no need to pay additional money to get the same services.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate SCOM as a seven-out-of-ten. It is a good product, but so are the free open-source products it competes with.  

We use this tool to patch laptops, conduct an inventory, and gather information about our systems. We use SCCM and another solution around SCCM to gain a complete view of our laptops and desktops.

We use the solution for deployment purposes, including deploying solutions, new products, applications, and patch solutions.

The solution primarily drives system information, and I believe it works fine.

Regarding certain issues in the solution, it can be difficult to generate reports if we have a program that is not user-friendly for reporting. While this is not necessarily negative, we may need to use another solution. We can explore alternatives through certain products from Azure, but it may still be difficult to generate reports without specific development.

In short, I feel the reporting feature of the solution needs to be better since it is very difficult to have a report of the best quality.

We use the SCOM solution in our company and provide it to clients, if possible. Our role is to build a solution architecture for our clients. While SCOM is not our primary product, we have been using it for ten years, and it remains the latest solution to expedite our system information.

I think the solution is stable, but we had to meet with our engineer to address some tuning issues. When the solution gets appropriately tuned, it is a good solution.

I have worked with four big international companies using this solution.

My team uses Microsoft support to assist our clients, but we have a specific link with Microsoft to provide support for certain clients.

I work with solutions like Microsoft SCCM and Microsoft Intune.

We use the solution in our work for a big company, but we are rarely involved in the setup of the solution. The company uses and upgrades the solution but is not typically involved in new installations.

I work for a big company and thus have access to a certain piece of system information that can be considered big and vast. Due to its size, we have separated the activities, primarily because there are many activities. Also, we have many engineers working on the solution.

I recommend others to try this solution. Also, I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is used for monitoring on-premises servers, and we deploy it on-premises.

The solution helped monitor web servers, database servers and alerting, which is very useful.

The ease of deployment, especially on Windows platforms, is valuable.

The solution can be improved by expanding to cloud usage. Currently, a lot of people do not use SCOM because it is limited to strictly being on-premises, and many organizations are moving to the cloud.

We have been using the solution for approximately 11 years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. It has an excellent capacity to monitor 100 to 1,000 servers, based on how the SCOM servers are provisioned. You can easily scale up your monitoring capacity.

I rate my experience with customer service and support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward, and only one person was required for deployment and maintenance.

We did not evaluate other options.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved by adapting to a cloud environment. I advise users considering the solution to use it if they have on-premise servers and more of a Windows-based environment.

One of our customers is an Australian delivery company. They use SCOM to manage their servers, hardware, applications, NAS devices, hand devices, hypervisor, and virtualization environment. Another customer uses SCOM to monitor their clients. They have more than 3000 Windows and Linux servers.

The product’s auto-remediation feature helps with automation. It is very good at monitoring Microsoft Stack.

Application monitoring must be improved. The product must provide support for monitoring virtualization. It is a complex tool. It is not easy to configure it.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability five out of ten. Scalability must be improved. The solution is suitable for enterprise businesses.

I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. From planning to POST checks, the whole process takes one week.

It is the cheapest product available in the market. I rate the pricing a one out of ten.

I work for a managed service provider. We provide services for SCOM. We provide in-house support and services to our customers. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.