RE: ITM

Hello.

I totally agree! I share all your concerns about ITM.

I really think all Enterprises will move to MOM 2005 in 1.5-2 years.
ITM is already a "dead" product. We can't wait to move to MOM, it is just so 
much better at monitoring Windows. I'll bet the Unix addon is better than ITM 
too.

I think R&D is going into all the fancy "Orchestrator... products that no one 
wan'ts and no one needs? Ask any customer what they wan't out of Tivoli and the 
answer will be stable products! Somehow this answer became Orchestrator while 
moving up the IBM marketing hierarchy...

IBM had the market and the chance to really do something good about ITM. But 
the competition has already caught up.
It's over guys let's face it.....

I can only imagine what a mess it will be to unite Candle monitoring with ITM.

At the end we had to build our own "Framework" to care and feed ITM. A total 
waste of time and money but it was the only way to get ITM going..

So if all goes well in MOM testing you wont se any more postings from me 
regarding ITM (-:

/Gus

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Robert_Traill@xxxxxxx
Sent: den 29 januari 2005 14:03
To: tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tme10] ITM

Ah, another compelling reason why IBM has been struggling to get customers
off of DM 3.7 Classic product ....it is much more user friendly.
ITM is a pain the donkey's behind really.   For 2 years,  IBM has not been
able to correct ITM's many major shortcomings.  I know that a new release is
due this fall to try and combine DM Classic & Candle agents before moving
into ITM in 2006 sometime....but ITM is just plain no good in practice.  It
is great conceptually in that it correlates etc.     Take a look at what
NetCool is doing....no agent code needed on monitored servers...it learns
the servers normal behaviour,  reacts only when a particular server is out
of norm....very very nice indeed.  ITM is unfortunately built on the
presumption that all servers are relatively equal.......maybe true in IBM
lab.......but not in customer's world.

We only use out of box resouce models and absolutely refuse to use the
Resource model builder to add BASIC capabilities that DM provided.   The RM
builder is OK for adding monitoring for components/elements not covered by
ITM out of box, but not features such as multiple thresholds,  distributing
scripts/code for task execution.

Many ITM Resource models are not even pertinent to the OS they
monitor....one key one is TMW_LogicalDisk.....it calls for a pecentage in
the setting of thresholds (no coding of bytes/MB etc) and cannot ignore any
LogicalDisks...... while the DMX Unix RM allows for coding of MB.

This makes the TMW RM completely irrelevant due to varying disk sizes.
Just imagine hat happens when a Windows admin gets paged due to a TEC event
indicating server "X" has only 1%  disk space on Logical disk D .....when
disk D is 200GB...thats 2GB still free!!   The OS admin will tell you to
jump off a bridge.
ITM must be redesigned.  Our shop is testing MS MOM for all windows
monitoring.  Thus far it is going well and we will likely end up pulling the
plug on 3/4 of our ITM presence before too long.  IBM really messed up with
ITM.


Rob


From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 01/28/2005 08:06:34 PM
Subject: [tme10] ITM

Hi list,

is it possible to distribute an custom configurationfile together with a
Ressource Model Profile , like the Distribution Action in DM3.7.


-- 
10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail 
<<http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail>> 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++


Rob Traill,  Tivoli Specialist
Enterprise Systems Operations
ph:   (905) 795-5400 ext 7315
fax:  (905) 795-5404
email:  robert_traill@xxxxxxx
email (rim):  rtraill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx