Don't forget to turn your out of office reply on! Sorry - couldn't resist the timing for the joke.
Steve -----Original Message----- From: Carroll, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 16, 2005 11:56 AM To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Dirk, I am now out of the office for a week, so I will have to check this upon my return. I must admit that I haven't double checked the other Servers that I am running this check against. I let you know the outcome, next week. Thanks for the assistance so far. Regards, Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: 16 February 2005 10:21 To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Do you have that (for this counter) towards all system or just towards this one system? I just tried on my system and it gives the exact same value using SA and the Performance Monitor. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carroll, Andy Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:53 AM To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Dirk, I have run Windows Perfmon both locally on the Server (NT4) I am try to monitor, and remotely via the LAN from different machines, including the machine running Servers Alive, and different operating systems (XP, W2K, NT4). The Windows Perfmon results are always approximately the same whether running locally or remotely via the LAN. It is only the returned result in Servers Alive that appears to be different. The result returned by Servers Alive does appear to correspond with the deterioration in performance we are experiencing once the Pool Nonpaged Bytes is reporting over 70MB via the Servers Alive check, but at the same time Windows Perfmon is not reporting the same value and is staying fairly constant, in yesterdays case at approx 42.5MB. This is causing me headaches at the moment... Regards, Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: 16 February 2005 06:03 To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes The old v4.1 is NOT 4.1.1630 but the released v4.1, 1630 is/was a beta build after the real release. My question was (wrongly written by me :-() are you running perfmon (not the perfmon checks of SA) localy or via the LAN? The difference between how SA 4.1 (release) and SA 5.0 (and several beta builds AFTER 4.1 release) are doing it is that the 4.1 release uses the "service" of PHD.DLL while the newer don't. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carroll, Andy Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:04 AM To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Dirk, I am running the Servers Alive Perfmon checks only across a LAN, not the Internet. If the "old" v4.1 used the same system as Perfmon (windows version) can you explain why there is a difference in the result return via Servers Alive and the result returned by the Windows Perfmon Application? I also found that V5.0.1649 and V4.1.1630 produced almost the same values which would indicate that if the 2 versions use different methods to return the Perfmon counter value, then this is not responsible for the difference I am experiencing between the Servers Alive return values and those being displayed when running Windows Perfmon Application. Any further thoughts? Regards, Andy PS. Could people please refrain from stealing a thread subject, you know who you are... :-) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: 15 February 2005 14:25 To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Are you running perfmon localy or also via the internet? The "old" v4.1 used the same system as perfmon.. Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carroll, Andy Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:19 PM To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged B ytes Dirk, Can you advise which method Servers Alive is using, and advise if this is different to the method that Perfmon is using. I am quite concerned about the problem we are experiencing as the figures returned by Servers Alive do appear to coincide with the performance of the Server deteriorating due to a memory leak somewhere, but the Perfmon figures produced running Windows Perfmon interactively did not report any significant change in the Pool Nonpaged bytes (which is the performance counter I am monitoring) and did not go above my threshold this morning even though the system ground to a virtual stand still. Request to the rest of the forum members: Does anyone have or can suggest better memory monitoring utilities (rather than Microsoft Perfmon) that may help me trace this memory leak issue I seem to be experiencing. Thanks, Andy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dirk Bulinckx Sent: 15 February 2005 12:02 To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: RE: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged Bytes There are 2 ways to get perfmon values, one via the registry and one via an api call. Perfmon and the perfmon checks are doing it differently that's all Dirk. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carroll, Andy Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:43 AM To: salive@woodstone.nu Subject: [SA-list] Servers Alive - NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged Bytes Dirk, Servers Alive version 4.1.1630 I am currently monitoring 'NT Perfmon, Memory, Pool Nonpaged Bytes' closely on some of our servers as there is a critical point at which we need to consider rebooting a server before it becomes service affecting. At the moment the check is returning 57573376 (Bytes according to the check detail), which is above the threshold I have the alert set at (55000000 bytes which I am approximating as 55MB), but running the same check using Perfmon shows only 4242800 (bytes? Perfmon is using the default scale) and this is appearing as approx 42.5 on the vertical axis (which I am reading as approximately 42.5MB) The question I have is why are these figures significantly different? I have checked this also with SA V5.0.1649 and the returned figures are almost identical to those I am getting returned by SA V4.1.1630 on my production system. I need to be confident that the figures I am getting returned via Servers Alive accurately represent the state of the machine being monitored. Servers Alive is currently running on a Windows 2000 Professional Workstation and the Server being monitored is running NT4.0, I have run Perfmon on NT4 / W2K and XP with the same figures being return on each different OS. Regards, Andy To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive Please note that Internet email is not always private, secure or reliable. The sender accepts no liability for any damages caused by any virus inadvertently transmitted with this email. Any opinion expressed in this email is solely that of the author, unless clearly indicated otherwise. This email, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or proprietary information that is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, please delete the email and advise the sender of the delivery error. To unsubscribe from a list, send a mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] With the following in the body of the message: unsubscribe SAlive
