none
Exchange Correlation Service Error RRS feed

Answers

  • The Change Tracking one is fixed and published already; but we found another similar bug in the 'Security and Audit' pack, if you have that one - we are actively working on the fix.
    Monday, March 30, 2015 7:19 PM
  • No, you don't need to remove Change Tracking - because the Change Tracking issue has been fixed and published already.

    But we found another similar bug in the 'Security and Audit' pack, if you have that one - we are actively working on that fix - you can remove that one in the meantime.

    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 5:13 PM
  • Yes it manifests itself the same way. It's actually the Correlation Engine that breaks if some rules in MPs don't have a 'category' set (set to 'none')... which isn't really required by SCOM per se, but correlation engine assumes that...

    Hence we are making sure the MPs we ship going forward don't have that, but these two cases slipped thru until it was reported and we understood it.

    How to know - it depends how the issue is reported/found out - sometimes we hear them from formal support cases and escalations, sometimes here on the forums, sometimes in the feedback forum http://feedback.azure.com/forums/267889-azure-operational-insights ... I prefer the latter as I can clearly mark a state to 'under review', 'planned' , 'started', 'completed' and so forth, giving people the visibility you are asking for; but if nobody reports it there, we can't pro-actively go ahead and file whatever small change we are doing - there are dozen of changes going in the system each day.

    • Marked as answer by Darren Joyce Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:53 PM
    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:33 PM

All replies

  • The Change Tracking one is fixed and published already; but we found another similar bug in the 'Security and Audit' pack, if you have that one - we are actively working on the fix.
    Monday, March 30, 2015 7:19 PM
  • Thanks Daniele

    What do you mean by "published already"?  Is that mean there is a technote somewhere, or that the new IP has been pushed out.  If it has been pushed out, we are not getting it.....


    Also - if there is an open bug, how can I find out?   It seems a bit silly to be chasing a fault for a couple of weeks only to find it's a known bug. 
    Monday, March 30, 2015 7:44 PM
  • Still a bit unsure what to do here. Do I just delete the changetracking MP to fix the issue?

    Thanks


    Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:38 PM
  • No, you don't need to remove Change Tracking - because the Change Tracking issue has been fixed and published already.

    But we found another similar bug in the 'Security and Audit' pack, if you have that one - we are actively working on that fix - you can remove that one in the meantime.

    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 5:13 PM
  • Thanks Daniele for clearing that up, I will remove Security and Audit later today to see if it resolves the problem.

    So does the bug in the Security and Audit pack manifest itself in the same way with the Exchange Correlation Engine error?

    With found bugs - its really concerning that I'm wasting time trying to fix problems and it's a "known" bug.  Is there a bug tracking list we can look on?   So far it's been 2 major bugs (well, 3 if you count the security and audit) that has affected our SCOM operations, and no easy way to find out if it was a known problem or not.

    Really appreciate an answer on that question.

    Thanks

    Darren


    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:22 PM
  • Yes it manifests itself the same way. It's actually the Correlation Engine that breaks if some rules in MPs don't have a 'category' set (set to 'none')... which isn't really required by SCOM per se, but correlation engine assumes that...

    Hence we are making sure the MPs we ship going forward don't have that, but these two cases slipped thru until it was reported and we understood it.

    How to know - it depends how the issue is reported/found out - sometimes we hear them from formal support cases and escalations, sometimes here on the forums, sometimes in the feedback forum http://feedback.azure.com/forums/267889-azure-operational-insights ... I prefer the latter as I can clearly mark a state to 'under review', 'planned' , 'started', 'completed' and so forth, giving people the visibility you are asking for; but if nobody reports it there, we can't pro-actively go ahead and file whatever small change we are doing - there are dozen of changes going in the system each day.

    • Marked as answer by Darren Joyce Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:53 PM
    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:33 PM
  • Thank Daniele

    Even looking in the Ops Insights feedback forum now, I can't find a reference to that bug using the search. 

    If it's reported via a formal support case, it would be good if it's posted in the feedback forum for other users, since it was significant as it affected on-premise monitoring.

    And in the error itself, its hard to tell if it was caused by SCOM, or by Ops Insights, and because of this, I assumed it was SCOM, and spent quite a while trying to fix it, and search online for solutions, and eventually I posted in the Ops Manager forum, and got limited help as it was not the correct place.

    As we can't efficiently follow our change release process with Ops Insights, transparency to what changes is happening (and when) is very important to us to use the product.

    thanks for the prompt responses. Really appreciated.



    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:51 PM
  • I believe this came thru support hence is not on the forum...

    In general, I hear you with regards to visibility into what changes have happened and control over when they get applied - there are a couple of ideas in that sense that other folks can vote on - we are discussing them internally

    http://feedback.azure.com/forums/267889-azure-operational-insights/suggestions/7161777-intelligence-pack-updates

    This one focuses more on the 'control' aspect -

    http://feedback.azure.com/forums/267889-azure-operational-insights/suggestions/7379491-control-when-advisor-mps-are-downloaded

    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 7:06 PM
  • Thanks

    the first one was my suggestion :) But I'll vote on the second one.

    Cheers

    Darren

    Wednesday, April 1, 2015 7:14 PM