From: Barry Lamkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: MQSeries List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comparison of MQ monitoring tools
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 20:58:35 -0600
Ok, now that we are giving vendor responses.
I am a former Candle SE, now IBM/Tivoli.
First of all, let me assure you that the OMEGAMON for MQ, will continue to
survive under the IBM/Tivoli umbrella. In that the Candle product has
been recognized as an excellent product in its platform coverage and
robust functionality, it will be the product which will continue to move
forward as the monitor of choice for MQ monitoring being offered by
IBM/Tivoli.
What will change is that the former Tivoli ITM for MQ product will be
rolled into the OMEGAMON product and will all report up to the CNP, along
with the rest of the OMEGAMON agents (zOS, DB2, CICS, etc). Additionally,
as OMEGAMON is now an IBM/Tivoli product the TEC integration currently
available will become more strongly integrated and more transparent.
Barry D. Lamkin
Senior IT Specialist
IBM Software Group
"Tuben, Gregg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: MQSeries List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/05/2004 12:23 PM
Please respond to
MQSeries List
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
Re: Comparison of MQ monitoring tools
I don't think George was looking for vendor responses but I wanted to
elaborate on Rick's comment below.
MAINVIEW runs on z/OS platforms but MAINVIEW for WMQ will monitor
distributed Queue Managers also. It communicates with the distributed
QMQRs via Patrol for WMQ Node Manager agent or via Proxy. BMC's Patrol for
WMQ will monitor z/OS as well as distributed. There is more z/OS specific
data available with MAINVIEW for WMQ than with Patrol for WMQ.
Gregg Tuben
Lead Developer z/OS WMQ products
BMC Software Inc.
As always, what I write is my opinion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Tsujimoto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comparison of MQ monitoring tools
Im currently working with Omegamon/XE, monitoring MQ on the MF, Windows,
AIX and HP-UX. It does a pretty good job, but once in a blue moon we lose
contact with an agent on a distributed box and have to manually restart
it. It's fairly easy to write rules/scripts to monitor whatever event you
deem critical. My biggest concern is that IBM now owns it and it's not
clear if it will survive. Also, I prefer the CMW over the CNP, but that's
a personal preference.
I did work with the BMC MV product and it was very good, but it only
supported the MF.
I had a short experience with Tivoli and I think it's a terrible product.
I think the other listers gave a good description of the short-comings.
The only encounter with QPASA was a presentation by sales about 5-6 yrs
ago, but it didn't address the MF at the time (still don't know if it
does).
A RYO approach is always an option, but unless your company wants to put
their family jewels in someone else's basket, it's not a good choice.
George J Shedlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: MQSeries List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11/04/2004 03:42 PM
Please respond to
MQSeries List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
Comparison of MQ monitoring tools
We are currently investigating MQSeries monitoring tools. The environment
is z/OS 1.5, MQ 5.3.1. We are looking for some comparisons of products
with regard to feature/function and pro/con for any of these products. Any
opinions are most welcome.
George Shedlock Jr
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://vm.akh-wien.ac.at/MQSeries.archive
