Microsoft

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager Feedback

Suggestion box powered by UserVoice

René Kierstein

My feedback

  1. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    René Kierstein shared this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Ideas » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    Hi Adam
    thx again for your feedback, I assume you have noticed the wish for a hard-code option.
    please just have it in mind next time you discuss an client update in the team

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    Thanks for your feedback
    I know about the "allowedMPs" and we do use the settings, but having a hierachy with 5-7 sitesystems placed behind serveral firewalls, preventing a clint to communicating with them, it is a problem with the client intelligence.
    We see clients trying to communicate with a MP for a long time before fail ove to the next on, trying... failing over ... until it finally tries with the one wher the firewall allow communicating.
    this sitiuation can be solved with a settings allowing us to override the client intelligence and hardcode to desired MP & DP.

    Renaming the sitesytems to new names to control this " in an alphabetic way" in not an option

    René Kierstein shared this idea  · 
  3. 699 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  28 comments  ·  Ideas » Multi-Tenant/ISP  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    René Kierstein supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    I could add a requirement to be able to share Configmgr objects between tenants like: Applications, packages, os Images, global conditions, driver packages, base lines, custom reports etc.
    in this way ISP could save a lot of work, being able to re-use objects.

    We have a setup like this where we have a "master site" from where we can migrate objects to tenants, using powershell and the build in migration engine.

  4. 807 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    16 comments  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Noted  ·  sangeev responded

    Hi. I’m setting the status back to Noted – this was mixed up with the item “Add support for TFTP Window Size” – that has been Started and is available in the 1603 tech preview build.

    Thanks,
    BobMN on behalf of SangeeV for SCCM OS Deployment

    René Kierstein supported this idea  · 
  5. 16 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    With CB1806 and the new "currently logged on user", it should be possible to identify workstations with no logged on users, and then ignore maintenance windows.

    so basically an deployment option to ignore MW, if currently logged on user is NULL or explore.exe isn't running.

  6. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Reporting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    René Kierstein shared this idea  · 
  7. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Ideas » PowerShell  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    Is the original idea with server group dead or do you have an Update for to share with us?

    Managing an Enterprise, we nede a nice Way to Update clusters

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    feature request:
    Option to measure if node is successfully updated, before continue to next node.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    - Please also add the possibility to use a powershell function library

    - Excuete script at local directory at the server being updated

    - cmdlets, so a server group can be configured remotely. We will use a CMDB system to store server group info / configuration and will use this info to configure the group in SCCM

  8. 18 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    René Kierstein shared this idea  · 
  9. 680 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    32 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    True, they talked about it at ignite, but the new feature must include better control with the cluster progress update than presented in the session.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    You should consider to include following functionality and error checking:

    What should happen if one server in a sequence fails updating? Should the sequence stop and perform a rollback and report the error.
    (generally, the ability to rollback software updates deployed by SCCM would be nice)
    At least make it possible to configure if the sequence should stop or continue in case of an error.

    Using scenario “Specify the maintenance sequence”
    Each step should have pre and post script options, including error handling (return codes). This is required to be able to control if a cluster resource is successfully moved to another cluster node before continuing the update sequence

    Make sure that the function works with both software deploy and Windows updates.

    Make sure that there are good logs. I can foresee some issue troubleshooting a failed update sequence if logging is missing.

    Automated Support for patching SharePoint Farms (without having to take the entire farm offline)

    Validate cluster services are online pre / post patching

    Improved In-console Monitoring for patching critical servers like cluster > more detailed state messages sent back to server > state messages for critical server patching sent through with a higher priority (like the state messages for SCEP are)

    Ability to configure alerts for cluster patching .

    Ability to configure email enabled alerts for cluster patching failure / success

    Ability to trigger Orchestrator runbooks as pre / post cluster patching actions

    PowerShell cmdlets to configure cluster patching feature in Config Manager

  10. 18 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    at least write back at state message, that explains the problem installing all patches

  11. 30 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Ideas » Software Updates  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    The plan for supporting cluster aware patching could be extended with some more logic, so updating tiered solutions could be managed in a nice way.

  12. 30 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  2 comments  ·  Ideas » Application Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    René Kierstein supported this idea  · 
  13. 34 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  1 comment  ·  Ideas » Collections  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    René Kierstein commented  · 

    it's good idea
    Should be extended with a check if there is a pending installation.
    no need to run pre/post if there is no installation to be done in the maintenance window

    pre/post must include powershell possibility

    René Kierstein supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base