You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Running the sizing tool on Windows Server 2022 Standard (Build 20348) provided odd "Yes, but additional resources required: +#GB" output in the "Sensor Supported" field of the Azure ATP Summary sheet.
It's possible that updated documentation or a reply to this message which clarifies exactly what evaluation is taking place under the hood could clear up the confusion. I'd also happily accept a "figure it out yourself" response if the tool were open source. As-is our best guess, based on context/existing documentation, is that the sizing tool intends to evaluate the difference between the minimum RAM required and the RAM available when the system is busy. If this is the case then the evaluation is incorrect (at least on the version we're evaluating).
I'm aware the tool has not been verified for 2016, 2019, or (we assume) 2022 and that there is an open issue requesting that 2016 and 2019 be verified. Even so, and even if the evaluation is confirmed as-intended and accurate, the concern regarding ambiguity still stands. Stating which resource ought to be right-sized and why the tool is providing that suggestion would help quite a lot.
Running the sizing tool on Windows Server 2022 Standard (Build 20348) provided odd "Yes, but additional resources required: +#GB" output in the "Sensor Supported" field of the Azure ATP Summary sheet.
It's possible that updated documentation or a reply to this message which clarifies exactly what evaluation is taking place under the hood could clear up the confusion. I'd also happily accept a "figure it out yourself" response if the tool were open source. As-is our best guess, based on context/existing documentation, is that the sizing tool intends to evaluate the difference between the minimum RAM required and the RAM available when the system is busy. If this is the case then the evaluation is incorrect (at least on the version we're evaluating).
I'm aware the tool has not been verified for 2016, 2019, or (we assume) 2022 and that there is an open issue requesting that 2016 and 2019 be verified. Even so, and even if the evaluation is confirmed as-intended and accurate, the concern regarding ambiguity still stands. Stating which resource ought to be right-sized and why the tool is providing that suggestion would help quite a lot.
The following file is a potentially-sensitive-data-removed example of the oddity provided for reference:
MDI Sizing Tool Results Example 2024-08-16.xlsx
Any response welcome. If further information is required please request it and I'll do what I can to oblige.
Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: