On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, David Boyes wrote: > Advertising aside, that's nice (and I knew that), but there are people who > don't have, and can't/won't get ESALPS, and/or are already using another > performance tool on another platform that understands RMF-PM input.
I don't understand the need for each and every tool to have its own client, when the same information is available -- usually with much less system overhead -- using SNMP. IMHO, monitors in the Linux space need to support technologies like SNMP. To not do so, and to insist on your own monitoring client, is to perpetuate the same vendor lock-in mechanisms that customers are switching to Open Source to avoid. I don't know if an RMF collector for Linux is going to be able to tell you much more than you'd get via SNMP anyway. So those folks used to seeing anything and everything about their MVS systems in RMF could get very disappointed in the amount of information they get about their Linux systems. Hoo-roo, Vic
