Hi All,

We have Lync 2013 and SCOM 2012R2 with Lync MP & synthetic transaction node.

Synthetic transaction node working fine, I can successfully run any Test-CS* cmdlets on the transaction node.

Inside SCOM i can see the synthetic transaction results, but the result is very strange, it is about millions of seconds :)

Operations Manager log File, on the synthetic transaction node, do not have any errors 

I think, that something is wrong, our Lync working fine )

Can someone help me to fix this issue? 

SCOM Result: 

Synthetic transaction node result:

Hi,

Did you feel latency when using Lync?

From the second screenshot you provided we can also see the Latency is a little high.

Please check the network configuration in your Lync environment.

Please update to the latest version for Lync server and then test again.

Best Regards,

Eason

Hi,

Lync seems to run smooth without delays.

I will perform additional tests.

But i wonder - why scom result is so high?

30000000 seconds it's something unreal )

Hi,

The unit of Y-axis in the SCOM chart may not express in seconds. If Lync use smoothly without issue you can ignore it temporarily.

Best Regards,

Eason

Have you fixed this already? We have the exact same problem. Values are unreal high.

Good Day!

Same problem... Thresholds in Transaction Performance collection Rules are 30 secs, hence the Lync Pool State is always "Warning" comparing ~10E+7 values... Lync Watcher Operations Manager Log entries (Event ID 335/334) show 'right' values (0-6 secs)...

Dear colleagues from Microsoft, is it problem/issue/bug?

P.S. Rule "Address Book Service Synthetic Transaction collection Rule" collects 0.00 values, values in Lync Watcher Operations Manager Log Events ID 335 are OK, in Events ID 334 are 0.00.

P.P.S. "Value in SCOM" = "real Value in transaction" * 10E7, except "Address Book Service Synthetic Transaction collection Rule" (in my case all values are 0.00)

• Edited by Evgueni Shirokov Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:24 AM

Good Day!

Same problem... Thresholds in Transaction Performance collection Rules are 30 secs, hence the Lync Pool State is always "Warning" comparing ~10E+7 values... Lync Watcher Operations Manager Log entries (Event ID 335/334) show 'right' values (0-6 secs)...

Dear colleagues from Microsoft, is it problem/issue/bug?

P.S. Rule "Address Book Service Synthetic Transaction collection Rule" collects 0.00 values, values in Lync Watcher Operations Manager Log Events ID 335 are OK, in Events ID 334 are 0.00.

P.P.S. "Value in SCOM" = "real Value in transaction" * 10E7, except "Address Book Service Synthetic Transaction collection Rule" (in my case all values are 0.00)

• Edited by Evgueni Shirokov Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:24 AM

Hi!

Same issue at our enviroment! (Lync 2013, SCOM 2012R2)

e.g. "Counter Name: "LS IM Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 16565566"

Counter Name: "LS Registration Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 26872539

Any news about this Problem?

Regards
Simon

• Edited by Simon Rüesch 21 hours 45 minutes ago
• Proposed as answer by Simon Rüesch 19 hours 15 minutes ago
• Unproposed as answer by Simon Rüesch 19 hours 15 minutes ago

It was a problem from the region settings, change to Engl. US, the values are displayed ok.

Thanks JonRunheim

Hi!

Same issue at our enviroment! (Lync 2013, SCOM 2012R2)

e.g. "Counter Name: "LS IM Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 16565566"

Counter Name: "LS Registration Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 26872539

Any news about this Problem?

Regards
Simon

• Edited by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:37 AM
• Proposed as answer by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:07 PM
• Unproposed as answer by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:07 PM

Hi!

Same issue at our enviroment! (Lync 2013, SCOM 2012R2)

e.g. "Counter Name: "LS IM Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 16565566"

Counter Name: "LS Registration Performance Latency (sec)" = Value: 26872539

Any news about this Problem?

Regards
Simon

• Edited by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:37 AM
• Proposed as answer by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:07 PM
• Unproposed as answer by Simon Rüesch Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:07 PM