AMDS vs Availability Manager

[Bart Zorn_1]

I am already complaining for years that Availability Manager is missing the most important feature of AMDS: the System Overview window. Availability Manager can only display one group at a time.

Up to OpenVMS V8.2 that was not really a problem: I used AMDS. Now that I have the first systems running V8.2 I found out that there is no AMDS$VMSAXP-V82.LIB file, with as consequence that V8.2 systems cannot be displayed in AMDS!

Availability Manager would probably be qualified as bloatware by VAXman and rightfully so. It takes a huge amount of resources (both memory and CPU) thanks to java. AMDS, being a DECwindows application is much more efficient.

Using an old Alphastation as Availability Manager station is simply impossible.

Personally I find this unacceptable.

Anyone care to comment?

Regards,

Bart Zorn

[Jan van den Ende]

Bart,

Wholeheartedly agreed!

Perhaps you can open an issue via HP advocacy? Be assured you get my "I Agree"!

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Bart Zorn_1]

I have added an "I agree" on issue 1572 from Andy Park, with a comment that this is getting urgent because AMDS does not display V8.2 systems.

Bart

[Ian Miller.]

There is a feedback form on
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/availman/questions.html

I think AMDS will not gain a V8.2 file but there is work going on to improve Availability Manager. A new version is due soon.

[Bart Zorn_1]

Thanks Ian.

I have submitted a comment on that site.

We will see what a new version will bring. But because it will still be written in java, no improvement on resource usage can be expected.

Bart

[Jeffrey Goodwin]

In addition to the one group at a time issue, the Availability Manager display is extremely network intensive. We monitor multiple clusters worldwide. I can't even get the AM splashscreen up over our WAN in a reasonable amount of time, never mind using AM to correct an issue.

I've spoken about this until I'm blue in the face. All I've gotten from HP is a weak excuse that "AM is what our customers are asking for". If you're such a customer that is demanding HP eliminate AMDS in favor of AM, I wish you'd fess up. :)

I can live with AMDS without additional features. It would be very simple for HP to provide the proper Alpha/Itanium V8.2+ libraries for AMDS.

This is just one more irritating move by HP that is sadly going to eventually drive my company away from HP and OpenVMS.

-Jeff

[Jan van den Ende]

Bart,

somehow I have not (yet?) been able to get to "issue 1572" to add my "I agree".
I did enter a request to continue AMDS to the AM feedback page.

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Michael Kloth]

HP Openview is now also available for OpenVMS (minimum version : V7.3-2).
Wouldn't this be a replacement for AMDS ?

[Bart Zorn_1]

Michael,

I am not really familiar with HP OpenView, but are you familiar with AMDS?

AMDS is (still) a standard part of OpenVMS and as such comes without additional cost. OpenView is definitely not free and therefore not a reasonable replacement, regardless of its features.

Thanks for your suggestion anyway!

Bart Zorn

[Tom O'Toole · Accepted solution]

Bart,

If you copy amds$vmsaxp-v732.lib to amds$vmsaxp-v82.lib, you will get a couple of error messages on amds startup, and the sub windows don't work, but the overview window works perfectly.

Been running this way for a long time.

[Tom O'Toole]

While people are fessing up, please confess if you are a customer who is requesting MS windows machines and applications be required for your non-MS windows MISSION CRITICAL environment. I'm talking about SAN appliances for EVA arrays, windows application to run enterprise class tape libraries, the supposedly-to-be-announced iSCSI capability for EVA using an MS windows box... the list goes on.

Are customers really asking for this?????????

[Tom O'Toole]

This explains the sometimes slow response of itrc. The sheer number of customer confessions threatens to overwhelm the server!

[Bart Zorn_1]

Tom,

Indeed! I copied the 732 version of the file to 82 and the V8.2 nodes get displayed in the System Overview. They also generate a lot of LCKCNT messages but because I have lowered their priority they dangle somwhere at the low end of the window.

Of course, this is not an acceptable solution but it sure is nice to have!

Thanks,

Bart

[Barry Kierstein]

Hello!

The Availability Manager team just got done with the work in getting the new versions coded, tested and put out on the Web. Thanks for your patience.

From what I have read in this thread, here are the issues I see:

1) No DECamds-like System Overview window
2) AM is network intensive when the display is thrown over the network
3) No one has really requested or is using a DECamds-like utility that runs on Windows
4) AM will not run on older Alphastations

Here are some answers:

1) The DECamds System Overview window is top on the list of DECamds features that hasn't been brought over to the Availability Manager. The underlying Java support for this kind of window is now available, and this feature is on the short list for a major future release beyond V2.5.

2) This is a known problem in throwing the Availability Manager GUI over the network. The Availability Manager team is investigating different ways to cut down this traffic in future versions.

3) Actually, around 70% of the Availability Manager Data Analyzer downloads are for the Windows Data Analyzer, and about 30% for OpenVMS Data Analyzer. Even though no one on the ITRC forum has answered saying that they use the Windows interface, I've met quite a number of customers at DECUS, CETS and now the HP Tech forum and OpenVMS Bootcamp that do. Some use their laptops when they are on the road, some are mandated to only have a PC on their desk by their company, etc.. The Availability Manager team strives to serve both arenas as best as possible, and needs a common code base to do so.

4) The performance of the Availability Manager won't match the DECamds application due to the Java code base. However, the Availability Manager team will be working on more performance improvements.

I hope this helps.

Barry Kierstein
Availability Manager
OpenVMS Engineering

[Bart Zorn_1]

Thank you for your response, Barry!

However, there is one point that you did not mention: AMDS support for OpenVMS V8.2.

Would it really be against company policy to provide a V8.2 LIB file? And would it be a huge undertaking, creating such a file?

Regards,

Bart

[Jan van den Ende]

Barry,

Is discontinuation of AMDS not in violation of the VMS bottom line:

"Do not break existing code"

Looking though _MY_ glasses it is!

Just another EUR 0.02

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Wim Van den Wyngaert]

May I notice that I never download AMDS but use it on VMS only. So, I'm not in the statistics (100 client VMS nodes of which 10 also analyze).

Wim

[Jan van den Ende]

Wim,

Good point!! (why did I not think of that?)

Count us as another case: 16 VMS systems in total, never ever any downloads of AMDS.

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Barry Kierstein]

Wim,

Good idea. All of you, if you download the latest version of DECamds, even if you don't use the kit, but just fill out the survey, it will give a more accurate reading on who is out there and how DECamds is being used. I have tried to make the survey easy to fill out, but give back good enough information to really get a view of the customer base.

Barry

[Barry Kierstein]

All,

As far as "network usage" is concerned, what is acceptable? The team here, in doing research in this and other areas, would like to know. My personal reference point is a DSL connection from home, 768Kbps/download, 128Kbps upload. I have run both AM and DECamds over this connection, and have a good idea of the performance.

Barry

[Bart Zorn_1]

I am closing this thread, so that I don't have to assign points any more. Feel free to continue the discussion!

Regards,

Bart