Difference between SiteScope and HPOM (2371 Views)
Reply
Occasional Contributor
jseverino
Posts: 7
Registered: ‎06-23-2010
Message 1 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

Hi:

I not clear a difference between HP SiteScope and HP Operaction Manager thinks a solution for monitoring.

 

Atte

Jseverino

Please use plain text.
Trusted Contributor
Haim Shuvali
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎07-07-2009
Message 2 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

Hi

 

HP SiteScope is an agentless monitoring application. While HPOM is agent based.

It means that SiteScope can monitor your servers (system and applications) using standard protocols such as SSH and WMI, while HPOM will manage your servers using agents that should be installed on your managed nodes. Each product/technology has its own advantages. You can also use an integrated solution that enables SiteScope to send events to your HPOM console.

 

BR

 

 - Hemi

Please use plain text.
D-C
Occasional Visitor
D-C
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎07-02-2010
Message 3 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

and also you may consider products based on how big your environment is,what all things you want to monitor,how much customizations are needed and how much cost you are ready to spend..

Sitescope is agentless light-weight and less expensive solution for monitoring as compared to HPOM...

Please use plain text.
HP Expert
DavidMolina_1
Posts: 99
Registered: ‎10-28-2010
Message 4 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

You can also consider get OM and SiteScope reporting data to BAC (ALM) in order to focus on the availability of your resources.

David Molina
HP Support

If you find that this or any post resolves your issue, please be sure to mark it as an accepted solution.
Please use plain text.
Frequent Advisor
SahilSharma
Posts: 44
Registered: ‎11-02-2010
Message 5 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

But SiteScope response over the WAN monitoring will be slow for Over the WAN OM is preferred.

 

Also in SiteScope  only one console that is  Management console is there which is web based console , for users (customers will also see the same console), If we want to hide any thing we can not hide but we can disable those by removing permissions for those users.

 

Please use plain text.
Occasional Visitor
mostafahassan
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎08-25-2010
Message 6 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

That's right i can also can mention that sitescope can monitor (Network services , Servers , Application by solution template , web transations , E-business )

it's easy to create reports and alerts in sitescope .

Reoprts like how many points you used from the total points from the license in the new version SIS v11.0

Alerts , you can take any action on aremote server since you have the administrator username and password

any action ( restart Service by batch , restart the remote server )

 

thanks & Best Regards

mostafa hassan

Please use plain text.
Frequent Advisor
Richard Snader
Posts: 52
Registered: ‎09-08-2003
Message 7 of 9 (2,371 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

Our Take on the two products is that they each have their place in your monitoring environment.  Particulary true if you are a large enterprise environment.  Here's what we look at to decide which tool to use (and yes we do use both for many systems)

 

OM  with its agent running on the server is an "Exception Based" monitoring tool.  You tell it what condition you want to know about, and it just sits there quietly watching your server's perfomrance, until that condition exists, and then it tells you about it.

The Advantage, is lower load on your network

Lower load on your server (because the server isn't processing polling requests through the network interfaces)

Less processing load on your OM server (because it only has to process a heart beat from the agent, unless there is an exception)

OM is especially beneficial if you are watching WMI parameters, Log files for content (Especially large files)

Any large number up counters.

 

SiteScope on the other hand, is a very diverse, and very capable polling engine.  You define what you want monitored, and what kind of polling frequency you want, and Sitescope will go out and talk to the server, get the information, process it, and tell you if it exceeds a condition.  The difference is that everything must pass through the networkwork interfaces of your server, and as such has to be processed at the expense of your application's access to the network.  In low bandwidth situations, this can cause performance issues if you over instrument a server.  The Advantage of the sitescope server is that you can from a client perspecitive verify that :

A web URL is responding with the correct content.  OM can only tell you that the web service is up.

Sitescope can do a SQL Query against a database, and verify that the response is correct.

Sitescope can login to a server and verify that the server is responding correctly to logins and network accesses.  SInce OM has an agent running, it is possible that it will get it's heartbeat out, and that the server is running, but nto tell you that the login process is hung or very slow.

 

Both Sitescope and OM can do Log File Monitoring.  SS does bog down if the logfiles get to be much more then 10MB in size, and since on the polling period it has to pull the whole log file over to process it, that can often become server and network intensive depending on how often you poll the log file.

 

When it comes to Performance counters, Sitescope can read most if not all of the same server perfomance counters that OM can, Plus it can do many of the Webservers like websphere, weblogic, apache, etc.  The thing you need to be careful of here is how many points you really want to monitor.  Keep in mind that you are still pulling a lot of counter info over which means you get your sever sending all of that info over, it has to be processed, compared to thresholds, and then alerted if necessary. 

 

We have learned a number of lessons using SiteScope vs OM in our environment.

Where ever we have to display the status on our BSM dashboard display we have to use SS because OM does not integrate nicely until you add the OMI product to your BSM suite.

We use OM For all Operating System Performance Counters to reduce load on our app server.

We use SS for all "External" Application testing on the servers.

We have learned that we do NOT need to be polling servers every 30 seconds or every minute or even every 5 minutes to know we have a problem.  Most of our SS monitors do 10 to 15 minute polls to reduce load on both our SS server and our application servers.  Our alert reliability is just as high, and our false rate is way down.  AVOID THE TEMPTATION TO OVER POLL YOUR SYSTEMS.

 

Hope this helps.  If I can give you any more help, please don't hesitate to call or contact me..

 

Richard

Please use plain text.
Visitor
ab244465
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎11-20-2012
Message 8 of 9 (1,768 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

This was really nice.. I do have one question.. Operation manager is compatible with other vendor tools like 3rd party tool (SCOM/BPPM).. Can we integrate these 3rd party tool with Sitescope

Please use plain text.
Frequent Advisor
Richard Snader
Posts: 52
Registered: ‎09-08-2003
Message 9 of 9 (1,572 Views)

Re: Difference between SiteScope and HPOM

I'm not a good person to talk to about direct integrations between sitescope and other tools, however, if you are using sitescope with BSM, you can integrate in some form many of the other 3rd party vendors through BSM.

 

I do know that if the other tool is able to send snmp messages you can use it.

If the other Tool has a log file that it creates alert messages in, you could read it and alert with sitescope.

If you can run a script with the 3rd party tool, you can certainly transfer the alert information to sitescope.

 

Our experience in the past with integration of multiple vendor tools, was that we could make anything talk to anything, but that didn't mean it was going to be pretty or easy....  That was one of the primary reasons we made the decision to commit ourselves to one vendor's tools and grow that environment.

 

Good luck in your integration endeavor!  Keep us up to date on how you make out with it!

 

Richard

Please use plain text.
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation