Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

pure HTTP vs SOAP over HTTP


We currently have a number of SOAP over HTTP software services configured with a classic AMD, version 12.4.13.

I'm trying to compare the + and - of using the HTTP analyzer vs SOAP over HTTP. The HTTP analyzer would be configured to extract the SOAPAction, or specific xml tag in the body to differentiate the exposed services.

The below is what I've gathered so far - it seems the HTTP decode may be better for our environment?

+ Allows greater control of thresholds for specific operations

+ Lighter on the AMD when analyzing just HTTP headers instead of body content
+ Would monitor SOAP request/responses where the suffix differs
+ URL auto-learning, grouping/operation attributes

- Doesn't analyze the specific request/response content to verify the xml service is responding correctly

SOAP over HTTP +

+ Analyzes the xml in request/responses to verify the service is replying with an appropriate response

SOAP over HTTP -
- Only allows 1 request/response suffix value per software service


Dynatrace Pro
Dynatrace Pro


You are correct with regard to the classic AMD SOAP and HTTP decode pros and cons. There is another decode, XML, that adds yet another option of flexible and low-CPU-consumption monitoring (at a cost of configuration complexity).

But this all is about to become rather under the bridge. Classic AMD support ends June 2018. AMD 2017, which comes in HS spec only, has SOAP/XML parser available as a configuration option of the HTTP decode, so you will always be using the HTTP decode, while SOAP parser would help in structured calls monitoring. Limitations that you mention, like single request-response suffix focus, are gone in AMD 2017.

Best regards