| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| MQ monitoring tool |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| AkankshA |
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Singapore
|
as stated above there are many tools and all are being used by one corporation or the other...
If all you want is monitor then u can decide wd the money factor..
However if you some specfic requirements then i would say a look at the product broucher and a meeting with the sales people would be most useful 
Good Luck with your search..
_________________
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| docBlue |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: not allowed Software not allowed |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 9
Location: NYC
|
Browser based monitor and management for MQ, JMS, WBI, ESB, Tibco.
Agentless w/ tons of ways to do admin (w/o scripts) and easily as powerful as Qpasa, contact admin, etc.
It uses a delegated authority model which allows you to set visibility and even actions on MQ-objects to different users or groups of users.
It would be worth you while to compare ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rxm8778 |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: Re: not allowed Software not allowed |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 37
|
| docBlue wrote: |
Browser based monitor and management for MQ, JMS, WBI, ESB, Tibco.
Agentless w/ tons of ways to do admin (w/o scripts) and easily as powerful as Qpasa, contact admin, etc.
It uses a delegated authority model which allows you to set visibility and even actions on MQ-objects to different users or groups of users.
It would be worth you while to compare ... |
What product are you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ADV |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 44
Location: Boston, MA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: Re: not allowed Software not allowed |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| docBlue wrote: |
Browser based monitor and management for MQ, JMS, WBI, ESB, Tibco.
Agentless w/ tons of ways to do admin (w/o scripts) and easily as powerful as Qpasa, contact admin, etc.
It uses a delegated authority model which allows you to set visibility and even actions on MQ-objects to different users or groups of users.
It would be worth you while to compare ... |
OK I'll bite for a moment, but I am interested too so...
what do you mean agentless? are you relying on MQ to monitor itself? or are you using client/serverconn channels and the command server needs to be running?
I am not provider of MQ Monitoring tools, just curious...
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| docBlue |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: agentless monitor |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 9
Location: NYC
|
Well, the CmdServer would need to be running even for Agent-Based software if it requires MQ to respond to it, which it does for most info.
On other platforms like WAS-ESB, Tibco, etc., there are other methods of invoking admin/monitoring that dont' require a cmd server; but there must be a listening daemon of some sort on all E-Messaging platforms.
Agent based works fine ... so does my 2800 baud dial up modem ... there are just better technologies 10 years later. WebServices is a nice start 
Agentless is faster and requires no installation on target Qmgrs or worse, management of agents (versions, os's, csds, service packs, etc.) - uhg. It is just as reliable, more scalable, and more cost effective.
Frankly, it is amazing how much money is spent on 10 year old technology. Me, I love my wireless laptop and pda. I keep the old modem around to show the kids how it used to be |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rxm8778 |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: Re: agentless monitor |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 37
|
| docBlue wrote: |
Well, the CmdServer would need to be running even for Agent-Based software if it requires MQ to respond to it, which it does for most info.
Agent based works fine ... so does my 2800 baud dial up modem ... there are just better technologies 10 years later. WebServices is a nice start
Agentless is faster and requires no installation on target Qmgrs or worse, management of agents (versions, os's, csds, service packs, etc.) - uhg. It is just as reliable, more scalable, and more cost effective.
Frankly, it is amazing how much money is spent on 10 year old technology. Me, I love my wireless laptop and pda. I keep the old modem around to show the kids how it used to be |
I am not sure I understand your point? So you are saying that you have a product that can monitor MQ with no agent installed on the MQ server? If that's the case how is that monitoring tool connecting to MQ to gather the metrics? Over a servercon channel???...
You then you proceed to talk about wireless, PDAs and modems...??? Frankly I am LOST. Not sure I understand the message you are trying to get accross. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| docBlue |
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: response to agentless |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 9
Location: NYC
|
Most of that answer was an analogy. Agentless access is a choice of svrconn or proxy or web service ... but it's much more sophisticated than what can be answered here. Sorry for the confusion, but many people argue the merits of agentless without understanding this particular implementation; therefore the analogy.
The best way to understand it thoroughly is to contact the vendor. It works well, there are customers with 1000+ Qmgrs happily running it. There is also MUCH more to it because, frankly, monitoring is a pretty simple application ... the ease of use and scalability are more the key.
A more interesting topic on this product is the delegated management, unique navigation model, and built in SOA event response. Those make the product radically different from others in the market.
/DB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| How can an agentless monitor tell the difference between a stopped listener and a bad network card? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| docBlue |
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: how can an agent tell the difference? |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 9
Location: NYC
|
The agent must communicate with the Qmgr, then to a central server, which in turn must communicate to a client. If the network card is down, the agent will not respond ... and would the central server even know? My experience is that it would not unless you monitored the agent.
As for telling the difference of each type of failure, there are different responses for each. You can actually decide to run a web service to restart the listener if that is the response.
If there is a bad network card, then everything on that server is basically toast to the outside world. In our case, using the agentless approach returned different info and a different pattern of failure (more intermittent) which let us know there was a bad network card. We did not need to see if an agent were running properly, there was no need to investigate that. We were also able to trigger a service to move the messages to a different queue (different Qmgr) when the Qmgr was not available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
How can an agentless monitor determine the difference between qmgr down and channel in retry (seq number mismatch) ?
Or to look back at the previous post between a qmgr down and a listener down?
| Quote: |
| As for telling the difference of each type of failure, there are different responses for each. You can actually decide to run a web service to restart the listener if that is the response. |
Bizarre I thought you said agentless? Have we just turned the agent into a webservice?? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| docBlue |
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: It is completely agentless - not so bizarre |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 9
Location: NYC
|
There are new inventions all the time. If you'd really like to find out how it works (and you're not just a tech for some competitive vendor - who like to frequent these forums) please call the vendors who do agentless monitoring (and MUCH more). I'm sure they'll be pleased to answer all your questions and show you how it can be implemented in your environment SHOULD you want a refreshing change to your current management and monitoring software.
If you are happy with your agent software, great. If you are interested in a refreshing alternative that's easier to manage, easier to implement, easier to use, and has unique new features, I am merely suggesting you explore that with the appropriate vendors ... there are more than one ... and all of them have very large, satisfied, customers.
Candle, Tivoli, BMC, ASG, MQSoftware, contact admin are no longer the only alternatives for monitoring and managing MQ type systems, unless you work for one of them  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Well you just refer to a website that has all the marketing stuff an no technical explanation. The little you gave us here would point to the fact that all you've done is turn the agent into a webservice.... same difference...
Enjoy
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PFDA |
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: not allowed Software - not allowed |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 1
|
| Much easier to set up and use than BMC or Candle. Plus it has a whole bunch of features that those 2 products don't have. Not to mention the built in LDAP connector and SOA connector (you don't have to program anything). You should take a look. Best for us, it's just another application on our WAS appServer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Without a piece of software that runs on the same machine as the queue manager (i.e. "an agent"), there are a number of failure conditions that it is not possible to distinguish between.
A simple example is being able to tell why a Queue Manager is not responding to MQ clients. If the network card is entirely down, then obviously the listener will not be able to receive MQ connections. If, however, the network card is *up*, but the listener is down, then again... the clients will not connect. Without an agent, how do you tell which is which? If you have an agent, it's easy. The agent notices that the appropriate runmqlsr process is not running, and sends a note to the central server. Or the central server notices that neither the listener NOR the agent are responding to the network and then it can "guess" that the network card is down.
In addition, there are a large number of things that one would like to "see" when monitoring MQ - available disk space to hold log and queue files, what processes are or are not running, how well the CPU is performing, etc. etc. etc... Not all of these things can necessarily be monitored from "outside" the server machine.
There are also things that one would like to control - start the queue manager, stop the queue manager, start the command server, stop the command server, etc. Without an agent on the box, again this is not necessarily possible.
If you are relying on an entirely agentless monitoring solution, you should make very sure you understand very explicitly what the business requirements are for your monitoring, and make sure you *know* that you are meeting them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
