Ship ArcGIS System Monitor with ArcGIS Server Purchases

3999
11
06-17-2016 01:11 PM
Status: Open
Occasional Contributor

     I would like to request that The most recent version of ArcGIS System Monitor be shipped with ArcGIS server purchases, and supported under maintenance. I would also like to suggest that those whom have already purchased ArcGIS Server be able to access the current version of System Monitor for a minimal addition to their current maintenance agreement.

     I believe that this product is instrumental in maintaining an ArcGIS Server infrastructure. In my experience, my team out-grew our ArcGIS server infrastructure without even knowing it. Had we implemented ArcGIS System Monitor from the beginning, we would have had a better understanding of how ArcGIS Server works, and could have been proactive in adding more servers than we were.

     Please help GIS teams Maintain their ArcGIS infrastructures by making System Monitor more easily available.

11 Comments

In my mind, a totally valid idea/request.  That said, I don't think we will see it for a long while.  SysMon setup sessions/consulting is a cash cow for Esri Professional Services, or at least they want it to be one.  If you are going to pay for ArcGIS for Server monitoring, there are other options in the market place worth exploring.

I totally agree to make this as a tool available to download (better if shipped with ArcGIS Server Downloads) as it increases the credibility of the GIS teams to monitor the services provided through ArcGIS Server. When I inquired for ArcGIS 3.0 System Monitoring tools ESRI wanted us to use of EAP Credits which I wasn't willing for.

I don't have SM 3.0 installed yet, still at 2 which was sent to me by Professional Services as part of a consultation but I don't have an EAP so install, config, analysis is all me. It is pretty dang useful software.

I totally agree with Chris ( Chris Mathers)‌ and Ramakrishna (Ramakrishna Billakanti) .  My production deployment is a 10.4.1, 2-cluster 3 machine environment that I have been successfully monitoring using version s since 2013 and find it virtually indispensable.  At 10.5.x we are moving to Portal and Federating with a hosting server designation and I suspect the monitoring tools will be even more invaluable.  

Being able to tell, at a glance, how my system is balanced . . . what else can I say?

Well all this is irrelevant now. Announced this week is that SM is being released as an actual product in approx Q3 for a yet undetermined cost as ArcGIS Monitor. Looks to be a more fleshed out and powerful version of the software than is available now. As an official product it will get support from normal esri support services rather than only though professional services. I guess we complained enough they decided if we really want it that bad we might be willing to pay for it.

Ah well ok then.  Thanks for this update Chris - I didn't see an SM update in the blogs.  Yeah, almost as soon as I finished my last comment your last sentence occurred to me - hopefully the cost is in the normal extension cost range and not say the BA or CA range, or per-core or something

Per core?  That won't generate enough revenue.  It will be tied to Named Users, somehow. 

FYI: At UC17, the EEAP (Esri Enterprise Advantage Program) Special Interest Group meeting announced that System Monitor would be an entitlement for customers that subscribe to the EEAP. So if your organization subscribes to the EEAP, you'll get System Monitor at no cost. If you don't currently subscribe to EEAP, depending on the cost of SM on its own, an EEAP subscription might make sense given the other benefits that come with that program.

Thanks for the update

It is per core but I'm not sure of the cost. As johnmdye said below its an entitlement of an EEAP agreement which we have. ESRI staff said in a meeting with us that it is by core but our "free" license is within the scope of our current architecture without elaborating further. If you aren't using SM3 already it might be worth it to get up with your sales rep about it. The jump from SM2 to 10.6 (they are tying naming to platform version increment numbers) is big but the jump from SM3 to 10.6 doesn't looks as big.