Scott Brickey

My feedback

  1. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Upvotes: 4

    <=-=Jul 3 2017 8:26AM=-=>

    SELECT INTO is generally a bad idea, especially if you’re inserting large enough dataset to warrant data compression. It holds a schema lock for the duration of the batch.

    You’d be much better off creating your table beforehand, or if you don’t know what the schema will be, a nice trick is to SELECT TOP (0) … INTO… to create the table quickly, followed by INSERT INTO

    HTH

    <=-=Jul 5 2017 9:19AM=-=>

    Kevnotec, I agree however our data is often “Similar” but different in health care industry and we often have to review mass data changes every few months from the same data sources of which data specs and values can dramatically change however the older and new data sources need to be combined even if the data types are off.

    Often we need to use select into for various data step…

    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  2. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  3. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  0 comments  ·  SQL Server » Suggestions  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  4. 68 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for the feedback – totally understand the pain points and confusion. There are a couple of constraints on the Azure side and also specifically with VPN. The key issue is this is for packets coming over the Internet which we can only assume total packet size of 1500 bytes max. Azure SDN platform performs additional encapsulation on the packets within our datacenter networks, so it will be subtracted from there.

    1. On the Azure VPN gateways, the recommendation is to set TCP MSS clamping to 1350; or if not possible for your device, then set MTU to 1400 bytes on the IPsec tunnel interface. We had updated/clarified the Azure documentation to call that out.

    2. Changing MTU currently is not possible from the Azure VPN gateways. We will take it into configuration, but it will not be possible in the short term due to the scale…

    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  5. 14 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Azure Active Directory » Domain Services  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  6. 21 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  7. 916 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    @JonathanTuliani, I have been waiting for the portal to support DNS, and I'm quite happy with the results... Currently my DNS are hosted by my registrar, as it makes the management simple... switching to Azure for registrar would remove my last hesitation in ditching the current provider (I'll probably switch DNS anyway, even though my current DNS hosting is free)

  8. 2 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  9. 8 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  (General Feedback)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    I should note that it's a classic mode VNet.

    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  10. 25 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  (General Feedback)  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  11. 1 vote
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Additional Services » Key Vault  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  12. 1,094 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    74 comments  ·  Azure portal » Resource management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hey Folks,

    We have made some great progress on this idea and most of our services today do support move resources across groups.

    We are still working towards 100% support and while we do that it would be great if you can help us prioritize the missing services.

    Please file individual asks on each service category present in uservoice and vote for it.

    Thanks,
    Azure Portal Team

    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    As environments change and restructure, it's not uncommon to need to move a resource from one group to another, yet I see no way to do that (in the new portal).

    Specifically, in my current scenario, I'd like to move an App Insights object from an old resource group into the new RG.

    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  13. 7 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Signup and Billing  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  14. 77 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Additional Services » App Insights  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  15. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Application Insights  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  16. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Resource Manager  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    to clarify on required fields for previously defined services...

    when editing existing services, required fields should also be validated (thus, a required field may be added after the service was created, and so will not have an initial value, but will need to be defined for any future changes).

    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
  17. 123 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  15 comments  ·  Azure portal » Search + navigation  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    I added the same feedback in the Management Portal area.

    I often find myself wanting faster feedback than some background auto refresh provides... I'd rather hit F5 and reload the entire page... by refreshing the entire page, i'm wasting internet bandwidth, cpu and IO from the web servers, cpu and IO from the DB servers (identifying which services I have), cpu and IO from EACH service lookup (status/etc).

    when instead, a simple "refresh" button would instead use ONLY the CPU/IO to check the single service represented in the blade.

    better usability AND a reduction in resource utilization... all for the cost of developing (and testing and minimally localizing) a button that probably just calls code you've already written (someone mentioned that the other portal refreshes in the background every 30-60 seconds)

    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
    Scott Brickey commented  · 

    I am aware of previous similar request (http://feedback.azure.com/forums/170029-management-portal/suggestions/3809127-refresh-button-for-azure-web-console-management)

    but on several occasions, I want faster feedback... in these cases, i DO refresh the ENTIRE page... a refresh button would be much more direct (since the scope of data being reloaded would be smaller, and presumably faster)

    I do this on BOTH/EITHER portal (manage.windowsazure.com and portal.azure.com). Especially when some services / information can only accessed from the one portal or the other.

    It's obviously your call... but without such a button, I'm forced to reload everything... more bandwidth, CPU usage, web I/O usage, DB I/O usage, etc.

  18. 194 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    unplanned  ·  16 comments  ·  Azure portal » Resource management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  19. 133 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  Logic Apps » Connectors  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey supported this idea  · 
  20. 33 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: oidc
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Logic Apps » Connectors  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Scott Brickey shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base