Steps for integrating problem-resolution (transaction trace) APM CEM with Introscope.
APM CE (CEM) just created a defect. Is it possible that it is a false positive?
An overview of 85% of the WTG issues encountered during recording, monitoring, and integration, and how to address them.
I've had some great feedback in the past few weeks from readers on this column on how helpful it has been to you. Thank you! And I hope to continue to read future columns.
Each week, each APM Support Engineer is tasked in getting out a KB article. While KBs are helpful for the "specific problem -- need a solution" scenarios, there is also a need to sometimes take a wider scope and focus on process, best practices, and techniques.
Three recent KBs attempted to do that.
The first one provides an approach to get transaction traces working with Introscope and APM CE (CEM). This is the first time that I have written this down after using it for a number of years. My success rate using this approach in getting things working is near 100%. If is also the same approach that I use also to debug these type of issues.
A second KB provides a list of conditions under which a false positive defect may occur in APM CE. Knowing this will help you determine which types of defects to trust or not trust. Eliminating false positive defects also improves TIM throughput and report quality.
The third KB is on the under-documented area of WTG Troubleshooting. Types of issues, logs to review, next steps, tools and techniques are all provided. By knowing this, hopefully you can hone in on the real issue a little quicker
Questions for discussion:
1. Will Tuesday Tips annotating recent KBs be helpful?
2. What "Big scope" KBs would you like to see??
3. Were the above KBs useful?