As a consultant with Quest Software, I am frequently architecting monitoring solutions for customers.
Part of this role is to build a solution which is both functional for the customer but also practical to deploy based on the constraints of the environment.
One of the most common questions I recieve is regarding the database monitoring capability: Should I go agentless or agent based?
My answer is "Yes". After a commonly confused look on the face across the table, I then explain...
To give you great flexibility, Foglight offers two integrated methods of monitoring databases, both of which are typically deployed to accomplish the full customer requirements:
In almost all database monitoring requirements, customers want to perform monitoring/alerting but also they would like to have an ability to do detailed historical diagnostics and analytics. These are two fairly distinct needs and not well accomplished by a single collection technology. Therefore, Quest maintains two collectors feeding a single integrated console giving you the flexiblity to deploy specific to the goals and constraints of your environment.
That said, here is a general recomendation I often make to determine what to deploy where: "Deploy agentelss monitoring to all databases and Agent based where you need it (typically critical production environments as well as Q/A testing environments)."
Here are some details behind that recomendation and why I make it:
Remote (Agentless) Monitoring:
Agent Based Monitoring (Also called "PA" or "Performance Analysis")
So long story short: Foglight gives you flexiblity when monitoring your database. Where other solutions try to use a single collection method (complete with limitations of that method), Foglight offers flexiblity, practicality, and full functionality for your DB monitoring requirements.
For further info, please check out www.quest.com/foglight