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
|
|
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
|
|
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
