How can we improve the SMA (K1000)?

Exclude based on label

Having the ability to use labels to exclude from, as well as, include systems in an MI etc. would be helpful.

356 votes
Vote
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)
You have left! (?) (thinking…)
Anonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
under review  ·  Dean Wade responded  · 

Over the coming releases, we will be revamping our targeting and scheduling pages. This a great example of where we will extend your ability to control what you are targeting and when it should be delivered.

22 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • Michael commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Am I misunderstanding or can´t you add "labelname" -> "!=" -> "YourLabelYouWantToExclude"

    I´m using that and it does what we need. A more usefull feature would be to exclude a label in general for everything without a need to exclude it in every single smartlabel. For example We would like to exclude "lab long time testing machines" from any software patching cycle, but we still need the inventory data, thats not doable except add the exclusion in every single fu.. smart label. Sometimes I wish we could have back a few of the SCCM features.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    It's 2019 now and this would still be a great feature to have! Being able to exclude an existing label like VIP, Virtual machines, etc would be much better than starting over with a brand new smart-label and trying to exclude stuff that way.

  • Tuyen Nguyen commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Is there any progress on this? In addition to this, it would be good to have it so that the selection can be based on AND or NOT for groups of labels. Right now with one group of labels are considered OR now with the deployment going to machines being in one label OR another label OR... in the list. I would like to have another group of labels be added so that you can give an AND or NOT to it.

    For example, in an AND setting, you can send to label of computers of production type AND then with the second group of labels put in labels of computers with some software not installed, and deploy the software to the targeted set of computers in this way, instead of having to create a label separately for this which I have found does not play well when smart-labelling based on other smart labels.

    Also, in the form of NOT, it would work in the same way as this request of exclude based on a label. So you can have first group of labels be to the list of production computers, and then for selection with the second group of labels, you can select AND NOT for a group of computers with some software installed already, and in this way it would deploy the process to just the targeted computers that are production and does not have the software installed.

  • Chris Blake commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    An enhancement to this would be the ability to exclude a device label or specific devices from individual patches, MI's, scripts, etc.

  • Donny Nicol commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Has any progress been made in adding the option to exclude based on a label or individual device? I find it inefficient, cumbersome and prone to errors creating multiple "Smart" labels which are dependent on other label names (since there are no GUIDs for labels).

    https://kace.uservoice.com/forums/82699-sma-k1000/suggestions/15776917-label-ids-for-smart-label-criteria

  • A Test commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This seems like it's related to other request for "logic" in the script deployment labels selector.
    right now if I choose two labels, the "logic" is always "OR" (i.e. if the machine is member of Label1 OR Label2)

    I wish we could specify some Logic, i.e. computer is member of Label1 "AND" Label2 "AND NOT" Label3, this should apply to anywhere where we choose a label.

  • Georges Khairallah commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Josefino,
    thanks for the support :) .. but, to address your SQL concern. If you're not on 6.0 yet, I urge you to look into it. They have added a feature to allow all queries to be created, AND edited with unlimited parameters, straight from the GUI, so based on what you said your challenge is, I trust that this feature will be like music to your ears :)

    Though, I still stand by my request for the label exclusions anyway, for different reasons :)

  • josefino commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I totally agree with Georges, most of the time we are busy taking care of other things and like my case I don't have much time to be creating or modifying the SQL. Then testing if the label worked or not. I know many people have experience with SQL but some of us don't. Therefore we have to spend sometimes hours testing special label. I know many awesome things can be done with labels, but only if you are proficient with SQL. Also I went to Dell World and signed up for SQL training and the instructor just taught basic SQL. I know is hard to teach and learn in one hour, but maybe this coming Dell World would be more focused on labels and SQL.

  • Georges Khairallah commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Pam, while I agree with you that this is possible, the point in requesting that feature is so that when you are targeting some label for a script, you wouldn't have to navigate back to the labels, and create an exclusion label specifically for that job. More often than not, an exclusion is needed only for that one time run, or some similar situation, and creating a label, then having to go back and cleanup after the job is run is pretty cumbersome.
    IMHO, I think the exclusion should simply be an additional field under each script/managed distribution , which would allow to either add a list of machines, one by one, or, add another label, which would treat its resulting set of machines as exclusion, due to the sole fact that this label is in the "exclusion field".

    Hope this makes sense.

  • Pam Kelly commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This is possible. You create a label for exclusion. Then create a smart label where Label is not equal to 'label for exclusion.' Run the smart label in the patching job.

  • Pat Jones commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    What am I doing wrong when I feel that this feature is MANDATORY. I don't see an easy way around this. What good are smart filters without being able to exclude something from them! Ticks me off this was mentioned 3 years ago and still isn't in place. I have a filter of over 1500 devices and need to exclude 3! Now I have to type in 1497 PC's manually!? Come on...

  • Johann Grotkier commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed. Often I build a deployment and realize later on that I want to exclude one or two machines. Rather than building an entire new label, it would be easier to be able to exclude those machines in the Distribution or Patch job.

  • Therese Reyes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I find myself always how to go about other machines that I dont want to be in my LABEL. Sometimes I want to apply to all machines in my Label but there is 1 machine that dont want to apply. Very tedious to create a label that will only exclude 1 machine and later to delete it. It would be VERY nice to have an exclude list based on the LABEL. Thanks.

  • Danny Maas commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Yes, this would be helpfull. We go around patching and installing software based on floors, but there's always an execption. Now, we have to make seperate lists, but an exclude would make life so much easier.

  • Jeff Ayoub commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    YES, I need this. There's always a few workstations in the organization that can't be patched during the normal cycle because they are used for something critical. Surveillance camera software, for example. It's messy to put exclusions for a few machines into all our labels. Excluding Deployment/Tasks to Label groups or specific machines would be very helpful.

  • Georges Khairallah commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Absolutely!! I agree. I think the exclusion should be added to any task (Distribution, Patching, Scripts), where an inclusion label is available. This is so important! as without it, anytime there is an exclusion needed, even for one machine, then a whole new label is required, and that can become messy really fast!

  • Jim Embry commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Absoultely need a better way to exclude machines from patching. Exclude based on label would work, but a simple checkbox (in inventory maybe) or other one-click way to exclude machines would be nice.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base