Kaseya Community

SM- Pending Actions and Errors

  • Does anyone have a link to VSA documentations for SM Pending Actions and Errors? I just read the SM guide for R94 and I'm not seeing the level of detail that I need.

    Pending Actions and Errors do not clear automatically in my VSA 9.4 SM module. I had to manually clear error. Is this a feature rather than a bug?

    I'm having a very difficult time understanding why errors from 5 days ago continued to display even after new scheduled scans completed. If I managed only half a dozen servers that would be a novel approach, but I work for an MSP with hundreds of servers.

    Software Management was introduced with great promise, but in many ways it's less friendly than Patch Management. The time commitment and attention is much larger than it needs to be, and I'm not learning much about why certain patches failed. I'm still referencing Windows Updates on the local machine to resolve problems.

    So, back to my original inquiry. Please share the SM documentation if you have it, and of course, in the long-term, can we configure a policy to clear Pending Actions and Errors them automatically?

    Thanks in advance,


  • The pending action errors are not cleared by design.

    Have you created a ticket regarding this?  

  • We submitted several  issues related to SM that were closed as "by design" when we worked with it almost a year ago during Beta. Gave up in January and went back to Patch Management. I recall that this was one of them.

    We'll take another look at SM in 9.6 or beyond, but the automation integration just wasn't well developed at the time we worked with it. With so many issues, we did not press the point.

    I will tell you to be persistent if you think it is a design issue and you intend to stick with SM. When I reported that exporting, deleting, and re-importing a view lost most of it's security settings, I was told "that's by design". I asked to see the logic that randomly chose which Roles would be imported and which would be ignored, because "by design" would include or exclude everything. The engineering team agreed and this is slated for review and resolution in 9.6, so I'm told. Be the "squeaky wheel". I only had to reopen and escalate that ticket about 9 times.


  • Some small update I can add. I've been told by Jim Schenck that in 9.6 there will be big changes to SM. That will include the ability to schedule W10 builds, that is now lacking... So, check again at the end of this year, that might do the trick...

  • There is a lot of functionality centered around Windows 10 functionality and improvements coming in software management.  It's been placed as part of our development cycle for Software Management.

  • SM's biggest flaw, is that there's no easy way to un-approve a bad patch.

    Usual cadence - patch his approved (either manually or by profile). Then, you become aware that the patch is bad (maybe some machines fail, maybe you read an article in the press, whatever) so you want to cease rolling out the patch...


    In patch management it was as simple as changing the approval status.

    It was suggested that to block a patch we could use an override...I imagine this wil lwork, but now you ahve a scenario where a patch is approve din one place, but denied in another. That'sa recipe for confusion disaster.

    speaking of which, there is no way to actually see what's approved. Yes, that's right - you cannot see anywhere which patches are approved in any given profile, or who approved them, or when. The is fundamental stuff.

    The module is fundamentally broken by design, because - the critical data you need to see, just isn't visible or controllable.

    I often think that a lot of the new modules are designed by people who don't use Kaseya in the real world, therefore the designers have no idea of what's actually important to use the software successfully.

  • Craig Hart

    I often think that a lot of the new modules are designed by people who don't use Kaseya in the real world, therefore the designers have no idea of what's actually important to use the software successfully.

    Craig! Right On! I almost fell out of my chair when I read that because it sounded like the words out of my mouth 9 months ago!

    The feedback I gave to Frank T. and  Mike P. when I sent them my list (2+ pages) of S-M issues was that "it looked like the dev team for this product had never seen Kaseya before starting work on this module!" So many interface methods were unique to S-M, annoying things like tabbed fields not working, and just broken things like the inability to use two policies to configure updating - one to configure the basic settings on most agents and another to actually define the update schedule on a per-agent basis (like we do with Patch Management), Another key issue was that the Beta had 11 or 12 pages of applications that were supported, but when released to prod, after filtering out the version-specific duplicates, there were barely 3 pages of supported apps.

    Oddly, 7 of the 9 tickets I opened for S-M issues were closed with the dreaded "by design" statement. Just because it was designed that way, doesn't make it good or usable.

    Because of these issues (including the lack of good control that you referenced) we're recommending that our MSP customers hold off on S-M implementations in production until the next release at least.