Are you in production with SM 7 yet?

[processguy]

We're deciding if we should install SC 6.2 or SM 7. A level of comfort could be reached if we know how many companies are in production, for how long and what their experience is. We're an international company with many sites and 16,000 employees. We'll probably handle 4,000 interactions/incidents a month between automated interfaces and users.

[tommy]

I don't know how many if any are in production with SM 7.0.

Generally it is a good idea to wait for the first patch level for major releases.

[benvargas]

I'm working on an SM7 implementation with a client, you may want to look at this thread...

http://www.sc-resources.net/showthread.php?t=3489

[oliver]

Hello,

we do have Service Manager 7.00.010 already in Production with Incident Mgmt and Knowledge Mgmt for a customer in Luxembourg.
Configuration Mgmt is configured. We have a few minor issues, but nothing that stopped us from taking SM7 into production.

We did not see the record lock problem in our environment.

The folks here processed about 1300 calls in January and almost 1000 in December.

Cheers

[benvargas]

Interesting, support did not indicate if this was an issue in only certain OS versions. What is the OS that your SM 7 binaries run on? The two development environments I saw this in were Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition.

Also, if it's not too much trouble, can you post the output of your sm -version command (you can always omit IP or other data you don't feel comfortable sharing)?

Thanks!

Here's mine where I can replicate the issue:

Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790]
(C) Copyright 1985-2003 Microsoft Corp.

C:\SM700\RUN>sm -version
----HP Service Manager Version/Environment Details-----
Executable name: sm
Version: 7.00.010
Build: 010
System name: 13080
System key: 0x784dfb00
Hardware type: PC
Network hostname: win2003server
Network address: 192.168.64.128
Operating system: Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
OS version: 5.2 Build 3790
--------------------------------------------------

C:\SM700\RUN>

[benvargas]

Also, what backend database are you using? I wonder if the binary defect could be related to only one backend - I've replicated this on SQL Server as the RDBMS.