I'd second that. The PTK is great at what it does and while I was doing an
extensive comparison a year ago, it's where I'd point operators and RTM
familiar folk to, it is a huge upgrade to RTM, but it takes an FMR/not
working as designed to do anything about. I would, rather tend to believe
ESAMON and when an issue arises, I can explore raw data/change the
panel/report to meet my expectations, ask and receive sound advice about my
perceptions. All that's bits and bytes, and we are all about the
details... however, if the specific number is important to you, track it,
correlate it to, report it to management as an indicator of.. . as long as
the underlining interpretation remains the same, it's a metric; if it adds,
subtracts, multiplies, divides, it's OK otherwise, move on.
Gregg
"No plan survives execution"
Dave Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARE.COM> To
Sent by: The IBM IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
z/VM Operating cc
System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
ARK.EDU> Re: z/VM 5.2 ESAMON vs IBM PTK
regarding SYTSHS_RSASHARE monitor
record
12/20/2006 07:06
PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM
Operating System
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ARK.EDU>
Craig,
I believe, based on some evidence I've seen at some client sites, that th
e
ESAMON numbers are correct while the PTK ones are not. I believe the caus
e
of ths is the fact that some of the numbers reported by the underlying CP
MONITOR data stream are not quite what they should be, and the folks at
Velocity have made an attempt to correct that problem.
Hope this helps.
DJ
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:40:33 -0800, Craig Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello,
> I've been comparing the Velocity ESAMON and IBM Performance Toolkit
>products on z/VM 5.2, and have noticed that they disagree on the value o
f
>the SYTSHS_RSASHARE monitor record. According to the IBM doc, the
>SYTSHS_RSASHARE monitor record represents "Cardinal count of resident sh
ared
>frames". When I extract the MRSYTSHS monitor record from ESAMON, I get:
>
>SYTSHS_RSACTSHR=6300.0
>SYTSHS_RSASHARE=9400.0
>
>When I extract the MRSYTSHS monitor record through PTK, I get:
>
>SYTSHS_RSACTSHR=6300
>SYTSHS_RSASHARE=2409384
>
>which corresponds to the 'Shared storage' value reported in PTK STORAGE.
>Does anyone know which one's correct?
>
>Thanks, Craig
>
