Thanks Patrick and Bob! We also have a PMR open to clarify how to specify those parameters about processors.
Yes, it does seem like very odd install location (/var!) and will probably require us to add space to every server (grr). How can something that does so little take so much! The info on the priority and scan groups were just what I was looking for! Thanks! marcy -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU] On Behalf Of Patrick Spinler Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:47 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] anyone running ILMT? Oh, one more thing. Since this product is yet another remotely accessible agent with root priv (YARAAWRP), I'm taking care to install it with a in-house generated SSL server cert, so that in theory at least, it'll only take commands from that specific central server. -- Pat On 08/02/2011 09:44 AM, Patrick Spinler wrote: > We're just deploying this now as well. A couple of things that I've > noted in addition to the manual config you mention: > > *) The install docs _appear_ to claim that the agent needs to be > configured with the number of processors (IFLs and CPs) in the CEC, not > the LPAR. Seems really weird, and I'm awaiting clarification on this. > > *) when the agent scans the local disk, the default settings really > hammer the system. You can lower the default scan i/o priority via the > command > > $INSTALL_LOC/CIT/bin/wscancfg -s swscanner.changepriority low > > There's also some noise from our consultant about being able to 'nice' > the scan to further lower it's priority, which I've not had time to > address yet. > > *) For further scan optimization, we don't want all of our systems > kicking off a scan at once in a shared environment. We're deploying > with scan groups to minimize this. We decided that having each system > scanned once per month is adequate for us, so we made 28 scan groups, > (day_01 through day_28) each of which gets kicked off on that > corresponding day and randomly assign each server to a group. > > *) IBM's default install locations for this software kinda suck wind. > It is relocatable, though, although awkwardly, since each sub-component > has to be individually relocated via either env vars, or parameters in > the install response file. > > -- Pat > > On 08/01/2011 05:42 PM, Marcy Cortes wrote: >> I'm a little afraid of this new agent :) >> >> It's supposed to monitor IBM licenses of SW. >> But apparently isn't smart enough to get what it needs out of /proc/sysinfo >> and you have to tell it how many IFLs you have and whether they are shared. >> >> And if you change the number of IFLs: >> >> "Updating the number of processors on Linux390 >> If the total number of processors or shared processors in your environment >> changes, you need to update this information for all agents influenced by >> this change. Otherwise, the system will display wrong information. >> >> About this task >> To update the total number of processors or shared processors perform the >> following steps: >> Procedure >> Open the tlmsubcapacity.cfg configuration file. The file is located in the >> /etc directory. >> Update the shared_pool_capacity and system_active_processors parameters and >> save the file. The agent will read the updated file during the next hardware >> scan." >> >> >> You also have to tell it what kind of engine (z9, z10, etc). Jeesh. >> >> >> But I am most concerned with the overhead. Does anybody have experience >> with that and this agent? >> >> >> >> Marcy >> >> >> This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you >> are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you >> must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or >> any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please >> advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank >> you for your cooperation.
