|
|
RE: ITM w/ MOM: msg#00538
sysutils.tivoli.tme10
Has
anyone implemented the MOM2005 Tivoli connector? When I tried t install it the
install failed because I didn't have Framework 4.1 installed. We are at 4.1.1.
Anyone else see this or have a solution?
Thanks,
Pete
Wow,
I am so out of touch ... I haven't been to any tech conferences since Planet
Tivoli '01 (or was it '02? ... it was in D.C. is all I remember).
The
only thing I can say is "IBM, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE replace 'ITM for Business
Integration WebSphere MQ' with the Candle Agent for MQ product!" We have
had Candle here for years monitoring MQ (both mainframe & distributed
environments), but IBM pitched a better price point to our bean counters a
while back, so we purchased ITM for MQ ... and right smack dab in the middle
of a very hateful implementation experience, IBM buys Candle!!!!!!!!!
Our MQ admins absolutely loathe ITM for MQ, and by comparison love Candle
for MQ. I'm just the implementer, I don't "own" the monitoring
experience ... I'll be happy to implement any dang thing I can to meet
the customer's needs, but I don't have purchasing decision powers around these
here parts. Grumble grumble grumble.
:-)
John
Guadagnino
Gap
Inc.
I recall them
saying at the Technical Conference that the Framework was going to move
towards a Websphere base. So maybe they're migrating towards that Web
Services model. In addition there is the Candle acquisition to mull
over - I know that the Candle Web Portal is going to be the main event
console for them and will (mercifully, IMHO) replace the Web Health Console.
I suspect that Candle has a lot to offer in terms of usability; they
always were a class act in the mainframe arena.
#######################
Joe Howell
Shelter
Insurance Companies
(573)-214-6534
jhowell-VgyywK8baNCHLWWfgqoybFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org
<gunnar.svanberg-tQ0j8nVVjSY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5Z02kCBrIhxGw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2005 09:37 AM
|
Please respond
to
tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
|
To
| <tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| RE: [tme10]
ITM |
|
What a relief they weren't whispering OS2
=(-;
/Gus
From: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5Z02kCBrIhxGw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hawkett,
David
Sent: den 31 januari 2005 16:33
To:
tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [tme10] ITM
SOA ??
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Loren
Cain
Sent: 31 January 2005 15:30
To:
tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [tme10]
ITM
At the Planet Tivoli
conference last fall, for the first time I
heard IBM folks publically discuss how the Framework
is
a limiting factor to the
kinds of things they want to do. You
might try to find some of the conference presentations
to
gain some insight into
where Tivoli is going.
The operative
word seems to be: SOA
Loren
Cain
Digicon
From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
eric_c_jones-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:02
AM
To: tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [tme10]
ITM
Tu chez... but I gotta say...the idea of
IBM/Tivoli products being better outside of the framework makes ya' think
and is kinda morbidly funny...
Thanks,
Eric C.
Jones
Enterprise Systems Management
SSMT Tivoli Engineer, JP Morgan
Chase
614.213.6537
eric_c_jones-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric C Jones
|
| <gunnar.svanberg-tQ0j8nVVjSY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2005 09:55 AM
Please respond to tme10
|
To:
<tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject:
RE: [tme10]
ITM |
Exactely! The
"point" in point solution at this site stands for 96+% (Windows) of the
installed base. So it's a big point!
Tell me something, if
Framework was such a good idea how come the products I'm evaluating right
now (TWS and ITMTP)
never have and propably never will run
under Tivoli Framework? And as a "consequence" both perform very well and
are excellent positioned.
Infact I haven't
seen one single product (apart from ITM) move to FW since I started in 1998,
have you? When I started with Tivoli products they where considered "good
enough". I'm not so sure that is the case right now.
To me it boils down to a focal point of alarm handling.
Frameworks or point solution does'nt really matter as long as the stability
and quality is in the right place.
Which clearly isn't
the case with ITM today.
Time will tell if
MOM 200? will replace ITM or not.
It sure will be an interesting
journey.
/Gus
From: owner-tme10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
eric_c_jones-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: den 31 januari 2005
15:33
To: tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [tme10]
ITM
Okay, I was gonna' let this ITM berating pass
and die...but c'mon... Both IBM and Microsoft are the respective kings
of patches, LA fixes, and major product course corrections.
As for the posting about MOM... MOM is a fantastic
product...for monitoring Windows infrastructures. In fact, I believe
that it just won a best of breed award. But the reality is that MOM is
a Windows platform product. It is a platform point solution that does
it's tasks extraordinarily well with minimal effort (comparatively
speaking). There are and will be more integration for the product to
do other things across platforms, but the following is
unrealistic:
"I
really think all Enterprises will move to MOM 2005 in 1.5-2
years."
Tivoli is a framework. Unicenter is a framework.
There are and will be more frameworks. We live the life of
implementers of frameworks. We do things with frameworks that would be
insane to attempt with a point solution. However, some point solutions
do things that would be ridiculous to do with a framework. C'est la
vie...
The technical impracticalities of
requested/required monitoring and management solutions are such only as the
respective tools force them to be. So when it comes to the solutions
that we must implement using our designated tools...there's effort, time,
training...etc.
But in our area of technology...the facts, although
interesting...are irrelevant.
Thanks,
Eric C.
Jones
Enterprise Systems Management
SSMT Tivoli Engineer, JP Morgan
Chase
614.213.6537
eric_c_jones-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric C Jones
|
| jason_shamroski-n1yi7zhirBtBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/31/2005 08:39 AM
Please respond to tme10
|
To:
tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject:
Re: [tme10] ITM |
I can't tell what the point of this statement is?
IBM manages the listserv and doesn't contribute much at all and they
make a ton of money from us all.
BTW - How many companies sell
services or products to shore shortcomings in Microsoft
products?
Jason Shamroski
JP Morgan
Chase
Jason
Shamroski
|
| Robert_Traill-v7N2k3TrpGc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by:
owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
01/29/2005 08:08 AM
Please respond to tme10
|
To:
tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject:
Re: [tme10] ITM |
Also, ITM is another reason why customers are turning to
external
consultants/experts to code ResourceModels to get back
functionality present
in DM. Notice that 1 or 2 companies are
dominating this list group. I
do recognize that they are
providing much valued input freely, but they are
also gaining much
recognition.
Rob
From:
owner-tme10-XtjxT7Vmt5b1ENwx4SLHqw@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-v7N2k3TrpGc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
email (rim):
rtraill-ZyKR0qJ3nKKIC6bbV+xI3kh/o/VBkw4H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This transmission may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained
herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you
received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender
and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy
format. Thank you.
____________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY
This
e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be
privileged.
If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise
received this
communication in error, please delete it from your inbox,
notify the sender
immediately, and do not disclose its contents to any
other person,
use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any
medium.
Thank you for your
cooperation.
____________________________________________________________
|
|
