What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?
-
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.
I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.
Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.
There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
If they can't get it to work and recommend a rebuild, that's a problem for me. A rebuild is something a provider would do because they don't understand every single component of the OS to be able to resolve issues; it might be quicker, sure, but that's not the point here and is a separate discussion.
I've had both Ubuntu support state this - that you didn't just have to rebuild, but with a newer non-LTS build for them to assist (LTS only gets support as far as "upgrade to non-LTS").
And I've had Apple do the "sorry, it just doesn't work and we aren't allowed to fix it."
...and that is my biggest issue with support. It's okay for a channel partner or provider say "look, we're just not that deep into the architecture to understand how to fix this bizarre issue. We could probably figure it out, sure, but at what cost? It could take us 100 hours to resolve the issue without rebuilding, or spend 2 hours rebuilding -and keep in mind you're on an hourly break fix right now-. It's my recommendation, but ultimately it's your wallet."
I can swallow that... but a vendor being paid flat rate? Nah. I'm not rebuilding something that can sometimes be a complex build out. You (vendor) are not just an expert, you're the author/architect/engineer/everything. You can fix it and take my money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.
I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.
Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.
There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."
I'll agree there are times when a reinstall is required. Too often is it the knee jerk reaction of some vendors (not just Microsoft, but I don't want to get off topic).
-
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.
I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.
Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.
There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."
I'll agree there are times when a reinstall is required. Too often is it the knee jerk reaction of some vendors (not just Microsoft, but I don't want to get off topic).
Well there are two perspectives there...
One is "should a vendor be able to fix things"? And the answer is generally "yes", but within reason.
Two is "does it make sense to fix something broken when it is cheaper and more reliable to replace it?"
It feels good to fix things and know that we fixed them. But if it is costly or unreliable, it's generally a bad decision. Think about it with a car. You have an accident, your car is in rough shape. The cost to repair is $10K+. The cost to replace is $9K.
Which is better?
Repairing your car is not $10K, it's that or more. You can't be totally certain of the cost to repair until it is repaired. It's a dangerous unknown, what if it is more damaged than expected?
Also, a repair is not a guarantee. Sure it seems to be working, but is it as good as new? There's been stress and unknown damage. Repairs carry a risk.
Why pay the same or more to get something lesser with more risk? Better to start fresh with a known good system, and lower risk. Unless the cost to repair is much lower, it's not what the business would want.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@bbigford said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
The point is, there are times in people's careers where they onboard a client who have systems in a problematic state, or currently supported systems that just break. Microsoft (in this case) should be able to provide any and all support to be able to fix their software (whether it's the OS or applications) without requiring a reinstall. In the cases where Microsoft support was unable to find a resolution in a timely fashion, I had to revert to reinstalling applications and/or the OS.
I don't know if I agree there completely. At some point, things can get hosed to a point that they are outside of the operational reasonability of the OS. I mean, let's be failing, at some point any fix IS a reinstall, maybe not in name, but it's the same thing.
Example - all your files are corrupted and nothing works. What do you do? Replace those files with good ones. What's that called? A reinstall.
There is a huge gap between "the vendor has a bug" and "the client broke the system."
I'll agree there are times when a reinstall is required. Too often is it the knee jerk reaction of some vendors (not just Microsoft, but I don't want to get off topic).
Well there are two perspectives there...
One is "should a vendor be able to fix things"? And the answer is generally "yes", but within reason.
Two is "does it make sense to fix something broken when it is cheaper and more reliable to replace it?"
It feels good to fix things and know that we fixed them. But if it is costly or unreliable, it's generally a bad decision. Think about it with a car. You have an accident, your car is in rough shape. The cost to repair is $10K+. The cost to replace is $9K.
Which is better?
Repairing your car is not $10K, it's that or more. You can't be totally certain of the cost to repair until it is repaired. It's a dangerous unknown, what if it is more damaged than expected?
Also, a repair is not a guarantee. Sure it seems to be working, but is it as good as new? There's been stress and unknown damage. Repairs carry a risk.
Why pay the same or more to get something lesser with more risk? Better to start fresh with a known good system, and lower risk. Unless the cost to repair is much lower, it's not what the business would want.
I agree with both perspectives.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
I've known people who've called support but never for something useful and/or they called but didn't actually get any support (but got their money back, at least.)
If you've never known someone to get something useful from MS support, well you can't say that anymore.
They helped me solve a driver issue that came from Windows update. I opened a case at 11 PM, had to pay the fee - later refunded because MS caused problem - and they spent the next 8 hour on the phone with me resolving my server won't boot - won't load AD issue.
This was an issue I could not solve on my own, at least not in 8 hours.
Now in typing this - I suppose what I should have done was restored the system from backup, frankly that wasn't something I considered until typing this out. Though restoring would have been a pain to say the least - this was pre that customer having virtualization, and they didn't have an image based backup solution.
-
@dashrender said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
I've known people who've called support but never for something useful and/or they called but didn't actually get any support (but got their money back, at least.)
If you've never known someone to get something useful from MS support, well you can't say that anymore.
They helped me solve a driver issue that came from Windows update. I opened a case at 11 PM, had to pay the fee - later refunded because MS caused problem - and they spent the next 8 hour on the phone with me resolving my server won't boot - won't load AD issue.
This was an issue I could not solve on my own, at least not in 8 hours.
Now in typing this - I suppose what I should have done was restored the system from backup, frankly that wasn't something I considered until typing this out. Though restoring would have been a pain to say the least - this was pre that customer having virtualization, and they didn't have an image based backup solution.
One problem that comes up is defining if support is useful. Did they fix something broken with the OS that IT could not have fixed? That's useful to me. Did they just do IT's job at higher cost? That's not useful to me.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@dashrender said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
I've known people who've called support but never for something useful and/or they called but didn't actually get any support (but got their money back, at least.)
If you've never known someone to get something useful from MS support, well you can't say that anymore.
They helped me solve a driver issue that came from Windows update. I opened a case at 11 PM, had to pay the fee - later refunded because MS caused problem - and they spent the next 8 hour on the phone with me resolving my server won't boot - won't load AD issue.
This was an issue I could not solve on my own, at least not in 8 hours.
Now in typing this - I suppose what I should have done was restored the system from backup, frankly that wasn't something I considered until typing this out. Though restoring would have been a pain to say the least - this was pre that customer having virtualization, and they didn't have an image based backup solution.
One problem that comes up is defining if support is useful. Did they fix something broken with the OS that IT could not have fixed? That's useful to me. Did they just do IT's job at higher cost? That's not useful to me.
Useful to you vs useful to most SMB... It was more than 10 years ago.. I just don't recall. I can definitely tell you that only an expert in AD could have fixed the issue, no matter who they worked for.
-
@dashrender said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@dashrender said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
I've known people who've called support but never for something useful and/or they called but didn't actually get any support (but got their money back, at least.)
If you've never known someone to get something useful from MS support, well you can't say that anymore.
They helped me solve a driver issue that came from Windows update. I opened a case at 11 PM, had to pay the fee - later refunded because MS caused problem - and they spent the next 8 hour on the phone with me resolving my server won't boot - won't load AD issue.
This was an issue I could not solve on my own, at least not in 8 hours.
Now in typing this - I suppose what I should have done was restored the system from backup, frankly that wasn't something I considered until typing this out. Though restoring would have been a pain to say the least - this was pre that customer having virtualization, and they didn't have an image based backup solution.
One problem that comes up is defining if support is useful. Did they fix something broken with the OS that IT could not have fixed? That's useful to me. Did they just do IT's job at higher cost? That's not useful to me.
Useful to you vs useful to most SMB...
Don't use the "Scott is special" pass. That's not a thing. The question is... was Microsoft supporting stuff that was Microsoft's job to fix, or were they operating as the IT being outsourced?
One is support, one is outsourcing to the vendor. It's not "supporting the product" but "operating the product", which is a different animal.
-
I used MS support today for a SharePoint issue.
I received a call back within a minute or two, and a super fast resolution.
It turned out the issue existed because there is a setting in three separate places that do the same thing, and they all have to be set the same... who knew?
They got it resolved faster than the time it took me to not find the answer on Google.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Is Expected of Microsoft Server Support?:
Did they fix something broken with the OS that IT could not have fixed?
There are some quirky poorly documented things that are sometimes need to be done with ESEUTIL, and repairing from corruption, or failed log replays on Exchange and SQL. In theory it's not always Microsofts fault (caused by storage layer issues).
The other issue is driver issues for IO devices. In theory this should be transative (supported by teh OEM who agree's to support your OS). That said OEM's often don't support the free OS's because they don't have joint engineering commitements to fix issues on them.
RedHat has hard commitments from Avago/Broadcom to fix a driver HBA issue if they find it. Having a Server that has a supported OS means they have Avago's commitment to spend hundreds of thousands of engineering time to fix an issue. Redhat will possibly work to mitigate it from their side if possible. Missing the OS vendor in this conversation/effort can make things move slower or stall. Avago and other component manufactoreres will refuse support calls from a customer who bought the device through an OEM so without the OEM listing your OS as supported you are kinda screwed.
(A long time ago) I saw a case where a I/O device had outright buggy silicon, and a driver and OS side workaround was needed to resolve it. This is all the more fun as how the I/O device engineering teams work is they generally refuse to work with a customer directly and require the OS vendor escalate the issue to them.
