Additional Pollers - Automatic Load Disribution

That's a nice story joe; but cast a critical eye on all that fluffy Microsift sales jargon... I still have Scars from MOM, SCOM v1 (the non-working edition) and SCOM 2007 R2.

The truth is that none of these solutions scale up past a certain point without pain, and they often let the users find where that limit exists.

Yes, I agree with this as well. This is a feature sorely needed in Orion.

One of the reasons why our organization is looking at implementing Microsoft System Center Operations Manager 2012 R2 is because of it's design for scaling the monitoring environment up or scaling it sideways - SCOM uses the concept of a "Management Server Pool". Details can be seen here: Microsoft SCOM Training – Learn about System Center Operations Manager – Microsoft Virtual Academy.

Quote taken from the free training material at MVA ----

"As you decide to expand the capacity (of SCOM), you will add additional servers into the management pool group. You roll out another management server that will be in the same pool. As soon as you do this, some of the roles that were running on the first management server automatically get balanced to the new management server. This takes the load off the first server, and spreads it out around the pool. As you add additional management servers, the roles will further balance. Therefore, the pool will take care of making sure that you have enough resources and you are doing everything you can to spread out across the various management servers. In addition, if one goes down, the role that would be running on that server will automatically fail over to the other management server. Everything is balanced across the pool."

- Copyright Microsoft

- Joe

This would be a cool feature. As noted it needs to be an option. For us we're not too worried about where the polling is happening from so the ability to turn on "automatically distribute between pollers" would be great.

Almost like VMware's DRS "Hey, this node has loads of volumes and interfaces and the current polling engine is at 80% capacity but there are three other engines that will perform better. Let's automatically move it...". But with the ability to create rules such as stickiness ("this node must ALWAYS be on this polling engine").

What about du that as part of that FR?

I just see that going hand in hand ...

you could have 1 more AND with poller ID or poller Group right?

https://thwack.solarwinds.com/ideas/4757

I voted for this and would like to add stacked poller load balancing as well.

The implementation needs to be done right and maybe reconsider the option to separate object polling from the nodes (Node-Bound polling)

I'd like the option of having a specific poller do the application polling, CCM polling, IPAM polling while polling the Nodes from a separate polling engine.