Originally posted by: stephen2615
I am interested in knowing if any one out there has any faith in the reports available with HTnM and Brocade switches.
Every day I have a look at the reports and felt that everything was going well but the more I delved into the data collected, the more horrified I was to see lots of relevant information seems missing or completely ignored.
While watching the ports dynamically update throughput on one of the Brocade switches, I noticed very high traffic and after finding out that the port is connected to a port on the USP decided to look at tuning manager. This port is by far the heaviest utilised in the whole switch, let alone the whole fabric. Somehow Tuning Manager does not reflect this. I have been thinking about doing better balancing on the FED ports but was not in any hurry as I thought all was well.
This port does not rate in the top ten (which is the page you first look at and sort on) let alone the top thirty. From all accounts, the reports from the Brocade switches gave me the impression the SAN was doing very little. I often wondered about this as Windows hosts often don't push the amount of data that UNIX ones do and this led me to believe the reports.
I am using another tool (SNMP) to compare the reports over the next week or so and am looking forward to the results. Perhaps it is something to do with SMI-S not getting the data that it needs to do and it may not be a HTnM issue?
The Brocade performance tool is extremely painful to use so thats why we rely on HTnM.
Anyone else feel comfortable with their reports?