OK. Trichotomy is not a real word but it seems to sum up things better than dichotomy. I find it easier to think of SCOM 2007 as three separate programs bundled as one – think of very early versions of Office. My previous post on SCOM 2007 Architecture (my most read post) goes into more details. As with Office, the integration within the components and with other members of the System Center family will get better. Just look at how well integrated Office 2007 is with SharePoint 2007.

As I was reading the new Design Guide it struck me again how this is really 3 programs and that makes it hard to write the documentation (and to read it). If I was new to SCOM I am not sure that I would be able to design a system based on the Design Guide – although it is a useful technical overview with some good tips. The Deployment Guide and Security Guide also show this problem. It would be better if Microsoft made separate guides (Design, Security and Deployment) for each component (OM, ACS and AEM) with an additional paper outlining how to combine them in a single management group.

Ever since MMS I have been trying to come up with a standardised way to approach a design and deployment but it truly is one of those areas that requires you to sit down with the customer and talk about things like which components will they be using, no of servers and potentially clients, no of MPs, geographical locations and WAN bandwidth, who will be using the console and so on. Real consultancy with an answer based on your knowledge and experience.

Mind you the complexity does help freelance consultants and Microsoft partners. Well that would me me then!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: