Microsoft

System Center Configuration Manager Feedback

Suggestion box powered by UserVoice

Nicke

My feedback

  1. 1,382 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    24 comments  ·  Ideas » Admin Console  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  2. 11 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Ideas » Content  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke shared this idea  · 
  3. 745 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  12 comments  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  4. 15 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Ideas » Operating System Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Noted  ·  sangeev responded

    Thanks for the feedback. We have made some improvements to the task sequence monitoring – adding columns for Exit Code and Action Output to the status view.

    We’ve more work to do replacing use of Generic E_FAIL with more meaningful error codes.

    Updated by bobmn for sangeev/OSD

    Nicke commented  · 

    Spit out the packageid or even better - the friendly name when a content chevk fails...

    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  5. 325 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  14 comments  ·  Ideas » Compliance Settings  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  6. 149 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  5 comments  ·  Ideas » Setup and Server Infrastructure  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
  7. 34 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 →
    Nicke supported this idea  · 
    Nicke shared this idea  · 
  8. 27 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Noted  ·  1 comment  ·  Ideas » Client Deployment  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Nicke commented  · 

    Forgot to mention:
    Main concern with using the PATCH-property today is that the recommended method is either to perform a pre-copy operation to local disk or referencing a UNC-path.
    With the pre-copy you obviously need the usage of additional patch files and the copy might not be as effecient as using the download from a local DP (again - copying from a UNC-path) and using the reference to a file-share might not be as effecient as using the download from a local DP.
    And since the UNC-path might be in a high-latency / low-bandwidth scenario (VPN through a coffee-shop, the remote office which has no local infrastructure etc etc) a triggered repair would of course try to use this remote patch-file. In such a scenario this is a very common failure:
    MSI: Action 1:44:18: InstallFiles. Copying new files ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:18 8560 (0x2170)
    MSI: Internal Error 2902. ixfAssemblyCopy ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:20 8560 (0x2170)
    MSI: Action 1:44:21: Rollback. Rolling back action: ccmsetup 2015-08-02 01:44:21 8560 (0x2170)

    Nicke shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base