What advice do you have for others considering SCOM?

I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others.

The performance reports and hardware performance alerts have been critical for maintaining our system's health. Alerts notify the server or service owner of problems, allowing quick decisions or actions to keep the service running based on configured thresholds. I rate it a ten out of ten.

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

SCOM improves system monitoring by centralizing server monitoring. The alerting capabilities in SCOM are helpful for our organization. The notification feature works well and is beneficial for keeping us informed. We use the default reporting tool in SCOM, which is Microsoft Server Reporting. It is user-friendly and integrates well with SCOM. Integrating SCOM into our current IT environment was easy. Overall, I would rate SCOM as a nine out of ten. I would recommend it to others.

The problem is that the solution does not have a predictable alert. It would help you diagnose faults easily, but it needs more predictive alerts. If a service is about to get affected or if there's a lot of noise on the network, those alerts need to come through on time so that it's more of an early warning wake-up call. You can either add more resources to a constrained tool or apply an available solution prior. Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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.

I am using the latest version of SCOM. Users should do a POC for the solution. Overall, I rate SCOM a nine out of ten.

From a technical perspective, I recommend going for Azure, using Sentinel, using Azure monitoring services, which give in-depth results and monitoring opportunities. Microsoft is known for its integrated solution. But what happens when those solutions have several issues, like SCOM or any other solution? But some companies get solutions to those areas to address those issues. So people start moving towards them, like, i.e. VMware or Ivanti, as I mentioned. These companies emerged as Microsoft solutions could not provide detailed or ease of accessibility and utility to those software solutions. I rate the solution a five out of ten.

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

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I recommend it for users considering implementing it and advise them to do some research.

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.

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.

I would recommend SCOM to those using a Microsoft operating system, but those who don't would be better looking for another solution, like ServiceDesk. I would rate SCOM eight out of ten.

We are using System Center 2016. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It was mostly a very positive experience working with it. I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

We have two system engineers who do the maintenance of this solution, but the number of people needed depends on their knowledge or qualification. I recommend this solution to others, but I would suggest having some training. I rate SCOM a seen out of ten.

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're using a lot of Microsoft products. We are also resellers and distributors of Microsoft. Whether this solution works for you or not depends on how you do your model. If you outsource everything, then you don't have the problem even if you're an SMB. However, if you have an IT department inside your organization, you will likely need this. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

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.

We do use SolarWind, but I am not on that team; it is used by the network group. I use the Operations Manager to manage my server infrastructure. The most important thing would be to go to Microsoft and get some training. They provide a lot of free classes in the form of webinars and other similar events. It has a multitude of different deliverables that most people never get into. It's a lot more powerful than people realize, and I believe people become dissatisfied with it because of the complicated setup, but once it's up and running, it's pretty amazing at what it can do. I am pretty happy with the way it works right now, I would rate SCOM a nine out of ten.

I'm just a customer and an end-user. I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. SCOM is a great monitoring tool. It's just pretty complex to set up, however, if you invest your time in learning SCOM, you can understand how it works and it will make things much easier.

I would rate System Center Operations Manager an eight out of ten.

If new potential users want to monitor a Windows platform or Microsoft Server-related platforms, I would recommend it. But if they want to manage anything else, they have to create a lot of custom things for them to work properly. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCOM an eight.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I would tell people looking to implement this solution that it's great for any historical tracking. But if they're looking for real-time, within-the-minute monitoring of servers from a console, then I would say that it falls short there. On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCOM a seven.

This is a good software. I would definitely recommend this software. I would rate SCOM an eight out of ten.

This is a good product and I recommend it. When it comes to monitoring Microsoft servers, it is very useful. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Overall, I find that this is a good solution but the presentation layer is really bad. If the interactive part of the console were improved then it would be better. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

Because we work in a financial institution, we are not allowed to remove the SCOM server and replace the new monitoring software. We have been given permission by management to search for third-party software to provide us with the missing features, which is something that we require to make it easier. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

One thing I would recommend to anyone considering this solution is to give more people access to it so that whenever people want to use the solution they can get information from past experiences and what's currently going on. Say for example I raised one concern in your query box, I don't know how it's progressing because it doesn't record that. You should give some ticket number to it and update it. In other words, sharing feedback even on issues you are not directly working on.

My recommendation to anyone looking to use SCOM is that they should start with the latest version because it's pretty difficult to update later. From an operational perspective and regarding migrating many devices and whole environments, it's better to start with the latest version for Service Center Operations Manager. On a scale of one to ten I would rate Microsoft SCOP a seven.

As far as meeting our needs for a solution, I give it a nine out of ten. But it is interesting to rate the tool. My rating doesn't really have a context. It is mostly engineers that are using the product. In a sense, it doesn't matter what monitoring tool you use, the success of a monitoring tool is dependent on the engineers using it. The engineer has to make it work. I'm really not aware of the total number of users that we service and with SCOM I don't really need to know. I don't know much about the actual numbers except that we've got 28 clients. Each of the 28 clients has a different number of employees and different engineers that are working on different environments to solve different issues. If I had to guess, I'd say there are really only 100 to 120 only. I wish it was more, and I think we can easily scale to meet additional demand. But the point is that we are responsible for monitoring and identifying issues in a variety of environments, and that is exactly what SCOM helps us do, with efficiency. We basically use everything we can that is included in the package and have found a real use for every module that's available. That said, we don't do a lot of network monitoring. Server monitoring, absolutely. That we use extensively. Reporting, we use a lot, event collections we use quite extensively. But we bring to the clients what they need most. We have confidence in the solution and we are going to put all or most of the clients on to Scrum 2019 if they are willing to accept the upgrade path. We are busy working on that in a project to upgrade it to 2019. It all depends on how well test upgrades go and the willingness of clients to enhance their services. We need to test it in the development area first, and then, depending on the type of environment that is running, we have to plan the upgrade in the proper sequence. Say the environment is a 2012 version, the upgrade path is to 2016, from 2016 to 1801, from 1801 to 1807 and then you must make sure that you're on the correct sequel version for 2019. But to do it at all depends on the license agreement that the particular clients have with Microsoft. Right now we are busy taking the environment up to 1807 and then we going to upgrade the sequel version, and then from there, we can go to 2019. So we are busy the whole time trying to better service our clients. We do our UI updates quite often. We are quite busy with our upgrade paths and testing to make sure everything goes smoothly for the clients in the implementation.

It's a Microsoft product so if you are using a lot of other vendors, other operating systems, then it's less compatible. For us, we're 99% Microsoft so it's not an issue. On this solution, the things we monitor are fine and perhaps other users will want more, but for our purpose and what we use it for, it's enough. Once it's completed, you only get triggered by emails and you can respond to those emails so when the system does its thing it's not that complex. It's very simple. I would rate this solution eight out of 10.

This solution makes people's lives easier. Especially that of our manager. No matter what report or information you have, sharing it with him it makes his life easier. It enables him to see if there is capacity that needs to be increased or if there are things that can be deleted. I would highly recommend it. I would rate it a seven out of ten. I wouldn’t rate it a ten because I would like for it to be fully cloud-based.

This is a good solution, especially if your company is based on Microsoft products. For example, there is a new version of Active Directory and they contacted us to let us know that the monitoring is supported. On the other hand, the interface needs improvement, and there should be better support for monitoring Linux servers. If the user interface, reporting, and support for other operating systems are all improved, then this would be a perfect product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

My advice to anybody looking to implement this product is to plan properly. Overall, this is a good solution, but there is room for improvement in application monitoring and the dashboard. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I like SCOM and have used it for many years. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I really know this product quite well, and I would highly recommend it. It is highly customizable and the automation is great. It takes a lot of the headache out of managing your data centers and software in other places. It's a fantastic product. If the network monitoring were improved then this product would be a ten out of ten. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution satisfies all of the requirements that we need for our Windows-based systems, so if you are using the Windows platform then this is an easy solution. When it comes to managing Unix-based systems, however, you will need to do more research. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This product is both stable and reliable, but it is not easy to use and there are not a lot of experts on the market to provide help. You have to do a lot of it by yourself. I do recommend this product, but I would suggest that somebody who really knows the product is in place before implementation. I would rate this solution a six out of ten.