Re: ITM 6 Agentless deployments

I don't recall any performance tests on Agentless Agent Server. Like most 
things it probably depends on the system CPU power and frequency of 
conditions that require an result to be sent to the remote TEMS.

Regards, 
_________________________
_____________________


John Alvord
Advisory Engineer
IBM Tivoli Monitoring 6 Platform
Customer Support 
Office: 1-720-396-2788 
Mobile: none 
jalvord-r/[email protected]

Cloud & Smarter Infrastructure
IBM Support Portal
Open a New Service Request
Update your PMR via Email
Escalate your PMR
My Blog: Wonderful World of Situations
Secure upload to ECUREP







From:   Jay Slay <[email protected]>
To:     "Discussion list for Tivoli product and Tivoli Ready products." 
<[email protected]>, 
Date:   06/08/2013 07:40 AM
Subject:        Re: [TME10] ITM 6 Agentless deployments
Sent by:        [email protected]



Thanks John,

I did see the 32767 char limit that was "fixed".  I will be doing this on 
ITM 6.3.0.1.
I would be more concerned that a large number of monitored agents like 
that would either be unstable or perhaps lag a bit behind on data 
collection. 
I was hoping someone out there had been down that road already and found a 

good set of tuning parameters (if any exist).

We don't use situation actions for much of anything aside from restarting 
windows services and probably a few small scale custom things that I have 
already forgotten about?


On Jun 7, 2013, at 6:21 PM, John Alvord <jalvord-r/[email protected]> wrote:

For a long time the rule was the the list of names with spaces needs to be 

32767 bytes. I remember folks that would reduce the size of the names to 
squeeze in a hundred more subnode agents. Typical maximums are 800-1000 
agents. Really bad news if you exceed it because the TEMS will crash. If 
you have a relatively small number of targets, no problem. 

However, from ITM 623 FP2 and ITM 630 GA the limit  was relaxed. The APAR 
is 

IV16083 TEMA            623 3   SUBNODE LIST LENGTH LIMITATION FOR TIVOLI 
MONITORING AGENTS 

http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg1IV16083 

Note that this is an Agent side update... typically this means you need to 

update the OS Agent to that level or higher... and the TEMS needs to be at 

that level or higher. 

Anyway, that is the way things should work. 

One interesting issue to watch out for, if you have lots of sub-node 
agents and you recycle the agentless agent server - then all the sub-node 
agents will be marked offline at that moment. If you have an MS_Offline 
type situation with an action command, you will run all that action 
command at once. I have seen TEMS failures from exactly this condition 
since all commands run at the same time. To dodge that issue - like if you 

were installing maintenance or changed configuration - you have to just 
stop the hub TEMS for the duration. Of course if you don't have action 
commands, just a flood of MS_Offline events go true and later false when 

they come back. 


Regards, 

 



John Alvord - Ph: 1-720-396-2788    Cell: none 
Customer Support - Tivoli Software - jalvord-r/[email protected]
Advisory Engineer - Tivoli Monitoring - ITM infrastructure
Developer Blog - Wonderful World of Situations
Follow us on Twitter! @Tivolisupport and Facebook
Personalize your support needs with the IBM Support Portal
Use Service Request to get assistance!
For emails regarding a PMR, copy [email protected]
For secure browser uploads: https://www.ecurep.ibm.com/app/upload
For Customer Support guidance: IBM Software Support Handbook 










From:        Jay Slay <[email protected]> 
To:        "Discussion list for Tivoli product and Tivoli Ready products." 

<[email protected]>, 
Date:        06/07/2013 10:54 AM 
Subject:        [TME10] ITM 6 Agentless deployments 
Sent by:        [email protected] 



Hey guys...just pinging to get a feel for agentless deployment 
limitations.  We may be looking to deploy a moderate amount of agentless 
for windows, aix, Solaris, and Linux  (several thousand monitored servers) 

and wondering who out there is using them and what if any gotchas you hit 
along the way.  How many monitored servers per agent, any env variable 
tuning used, etc.  we have several agentless agents deployed as it is, but 

only for older OS versions that require too much patching to run a full 
blown OS agent....maybe several dozen.  If we expand this list, I don't 
want to hit anything that could be avoided if possible...documentation on 
subnode limitation seems a bit lacking... I assume it is a very 
situational type of subject.


Thanks!

-JKS

_________________________
______________________
TME10 mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:[email protected]

_________________________
______________________
TME10 mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:[email protected]
_________________________
______________________
TME10 mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:[email protected]

_______________________________________________
TME10 mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe:[email protected]