Performance Reports - Based on Physical only

[Potkay, Peter M (CTO Architecture + Engineering)]

Over the years I have appreciated that the MQ Performance Reports always detailed the systems that were used in achieving those numbers. While the systems never matched mine, I could compare the spec ratings of their CPUs versus mine, compare memory amounts, compare disk size and speeds. And that gave me a rough idea of what to reasonably expect.

At least in my little corner of the world, virtualization is now the rule rather than the exception. I have a better chance of getting approved for an order of asbestos lined underwear than getting a new physical server approved. So everything new is pretty much guaranteed to be virtual.

Is it time for MQ performance reports to also include metrics and tuning suggestions for virtual implementations (i.e. virtual Linux sessions in a PureFlex environment)? How do we bring this suggestion to the people that could make it happen?

Peter Potkay




************************************************************
This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
************************************************************

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html

[Omen Blue]

Hi Peter,

Been on the listserv a while and have seen a few of your posts. This one seems to go down that same path as many others and though IBM does not have a solution, there has been one available for 7 years now. Avada Infrared360 is always talked about as a ‘monitor’. It does that really well, for very large organizations, true. But that is not the power. The power is that all the interfaces are “logical” virtual environments (the product creators must’ve seen this virtual world coming back when). If you read their White Paper (on the GWC portal I think) they are all about admin/test/reporting/monitoring BY BUSINESS UNIT. That basically means a logical env, not physical. You can match that logical env with your virtual env or many logical with your virtual or vice versa. The audience for the information is THAT business unit. They don’t see anything for the other business units, even if the stuff is running on the same Qmgr, WAS, Broker, DPower, AppServer, etc.
This is kind of old news, unless everyone thinks to wait for IBM to do it or it doesn’t exist. I think 7 years is a long time to wait on IBM or whomever. These business partners have some nice stuff that supports IBM environments, whether Avada or other. It’s just a bit confusing to me that people don’t look at them or wait .. like saying when the iPhone came out, “No, I think I’ll wait for blackberry to get their act together” … 7 years later they still haven’t.

Respectfully,
OmenBlue

Post by Potkay, Peter M (CTO Architecture + Engineering)
Over the years I have appreciated that the MQ Performance Reports always detailed the systems that were used in achieving those numbers. While the systems never matched mine, I could compare the spec ratings of their CPUs versus mine, compare memory amounts, compare disk size and speeds. And that gave me a rough idea of what to reasonably expect.
At least in my little corner of the world, virtualization is now the rule rather than the exception. I have a better chance of getting approved for an order of asbestos lined underwear than getting a new physical server approved. So everything new is pretty much guaranteed to be virtual.
Is it time for MQ performance reports to also include metrics and tuning suggestions for virtual implementations (i.e. virtual Linux sessions in a PureFlex environment)? How do we bring this suggestion to the people that could make it happen?
Peter Potkay
************************************************************
This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
************************************************************
List Archive - Manage Your List Settings - Unsubscribe
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html