Why would I choose to monitor collect data by WMI or SNMP or PerfCounters or WSM.

robertcbrowning

Why would I choose to monitor collect data by WMI or SNMP or PerfCounters or WSM.

Some of the decisions are obviously “because it’s the only way of getting the answer”, but other methods seem to be capable of delivering identical information. If I have a choice of process, as with many of the SNMP & WMI requests, how do I know which would be the best to use? Would it be worth collecting the same information by both SNMP & WMI? Should I even compare them with their PerfCounter equivalent?

Is there a prefered recommendation?

jiri.tomek

Hello Robert,
if value that you need is really available through multiple methods (note that for example WMI process monitor gives you also Virtual memory value, which is not available through SNMP process monitor), then there is a "guideline" for which monitor you should use.

SNMP is the best from reliability and speed perspective. It's much faster and more reliable than both WMI and Performance counters and it has lowest impact on system performance.

WMI calls can sometimes take a relatively long time and they have quite a big overhead.

Performance counters should be better than WMI but there are some known issues with performance counters not working correctly when accessed remotely (which is case of APM).

If I would be you, I would first try SNMP. If it's not possible then Performance counters. If they don't work correctly, then use WMI as the last option.