| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQ9 DISK stats: |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| fjb_saper |
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:35 pm Post subject: MQ9 DISK stats: |
 |
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
here is the output of amqsrua on my laptop for both QMgrSummary and SystemSummary.... so What is wrong with this picture??
QMgrSummary
| Code: |
Publication received PutDate:20160621 PutTime:03090390 Interval:10.001 seconds
Queue Manager file system - bytes in use 331834MB
Queue Manager file system - free space 64.28% |
and now SystemSummary:
| Code: |
Publication received PutDate:20160621 PutTime:03115739 Interval:3.348 seconds
MQ errors file system - bytes in use 331835MB
MQ errors file system - free space 64.28%
MQ FDC file count 87
MQ trace file system - bytes in use 331835MB
MQ trace file system - free space 64.28% |
I understand this is windows and everything is on the same drive... but shouldn't we see the total use of the c drive somewhere on the SystemSummary?? Or is system summary to be understood as MQ System Summary and then what are the values for the qm? They should not be the same as SystemSummary...
The QM uses about 48MB of disk space on my system.
Bytes in use MQ\DATA is about 331 MB
Bytes in use for the MQ\log is about 90 MB
Bytes in use in MQ including the MQ binaries (7.5.0.2, 7.5.0.4,8.0.0.4,9.0.0.0) is about 11 GB
Total use on the system is 331GB...
So this is showing no difference between total disk and qmgr...
What am I missing?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Andyh |
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 239
|
Note that the field titles here are "... file system", as you've got the MQ errors, trace and QMgr data all on the same volume the numbers are all coming out the same.
We would generally suggest that these directories were mounted on independently managed file systems, in order that heavy use of one shouldn't impact the others. For example you wouldn't want an MQ trace to impinge upon the queue managers ability to put messages.
A little bit of history might help here, these monitoring facilities were originally implemented for the MQ appliance, where access to the raw OS capabilities is very limited, and where the configuration is very prescribed.
In porting to the base platforms we had to choose what data to publish in the broader environment. On Windows the base OS provides the perfmon facility which gives much greater disk monitoring capabilities than it would be sensible for us to try to replicate. We kept the basic OS like data (e.g. CPU/Disk) as it gives simple off the box access (e.g MQ GUI) to some basic usage information in the same form as the MQ specific information, allowing an MQ admin tool to give a little insight into the more general behaviour on the box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
