Home› Outlook Console

Will Cireson be making the Cireson Outlook Console Add-In more efficient.

Alan_FosterAlan_Foster Customer Adept IT Monkey ✭✭
edited May 2018 in Outlook Console
User getting a message from outlook that the Cireson Outlook Console caused outlook to start slowly and want the user to disable it.  Will Cireson be making the Cireson Outlook Console Add-In more efficient so that Outlook does not complain about it?

Comments

  • Alan_FosterAlan_Foster Customer Adept IT Monkey ✭✭
  • Brian_WiestBrian_Wiest Customer Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is logic MS added to office to attempt to stop people from reporting performance issues on their products when the issues are getting caused by the add-ins. MS might have some reg key out there to change the time allowance before "detected a COM add-in problem". 
    Here is a MS KB about what they have implemented 
    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2758876/add-ins-are-user-re-enabled-after-being-disabled-by-office-programs

  • Alan_FosterAlan_Foster Customer Adept IT Monkey ✭✭
    edited May 2018
    Thanks @Brian_Wiest, I have read the post and understand what is happening,
    I updated the original question: Will Cireson be making the Cireson Outlook Console Add-In more efficient so that Outlook does not complain about it.

  • Brian_WiestBrian_Wiest Customer Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    To their defense I have not seen any non MS add-in that Outlook doesn't complain about. I have found that even when Outlook runs into issues it will always report issues with add-ins first. 
  • Tom_HendricksTom_Hendricks Customer Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    To be clear and up-front, what I am about to say has nothing to do with the "decreased performance" message.  However, my personal opinion is that there is still plenty of room for optimization of the outlook add-in.

    Not sure if I am alone in this (my sample size is still just one--I am still the only one using it here, since it is still not performant or configurable enough to release to everyone, yet), but when it does load correctly, there are still some operations that take minutes, not seconds, to finish.  I have clocked a ticket open at 10 minutes once, but it is usually less. It seems to perform far worse than the console on my machine, and worse than the portal.  That is what leads me to believe that the inefficiency is within the add-in, rather than just generally bad performance from anything that hits the DAS.

    Anyone else noticing this too?
  • Brian_WiestBrian_Wiest Customer Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Tom_Hendricks Only time I have seen an issue with the add-in is when working on the remote VPN connection. If I am in the office (or any networked office) the performance has been on par with the console. 
    Only thing that makes it not usable is on VPN loading configuration items. That I think has to do with the size on my environment. Think we are around 1/2M CI's 
  • Tom_HendricksTom_Hendricks Customer Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    And this is why we ask.  :)

    I would be willing to accept that we might be an edge case here and that something else might be leading to the issue.  In my case I am on the internal network with a relatively straight shot to the servers on gigabit ethernet (slowest connection along the way).  I never make the attempt over VPN, because of how slow it is over gigabit.  I haven't considered 10 gig since users will always have 1 gig along their route, and the servers never show the network bandwidth getting close to that limit.

    Size of the CMDB, on the other hand, may definitely be a contributor.  My CRs have a lot of relationships defined in their type projection so they are understandably a bit heavy, but IR and SR are nearly out-of-box and also load/save slow. 

    Maybe there is still something here that would benefit from optimization, though...?
Sign In or Register to comment.