---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes ---------------------------
From: CA Jacobi at Philips_DAP_Drachten
Date: 6/19/98 11:51AM
To: nv-l@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu at #SMTP
Subject: Netview versus TEC and paging
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody,
At first I want to thank James for his answer on my question about
UM-link traps. IPtrace pointed that The problem was not netview.
Technical Support is looking into it.
The situation is as follows:
I'm using Netview (4) as enterprise console for all kinds of failures
in the network. The helpdesk has a visualised view of the services
that we provide as department (they don't have to understand technical
netview stuff). Netview generates daily services-reports with the CPU,
networkload, filesystem-sizes and SNMP-events of every service.
A couple of things are in place and some not.
The signals (SNMP-traps) I'm receiving in Netview ar coming from:
Tivoli Distributed Monitoring, AIX errorlogs, NT errors and of course
the usual Netview network traps from nodes (until now only in Europe)
(seedfile).
Almost working and planned are:
ControlM (OS390, SAP R3), UPS (UM-link), Tivoli modules (SAP R3,
Databases, OS390), Command MQ, SAS for more reporting possibilities,
and maybe more.
Also almost working is paging outside office-hours initiated by
SNMP-traps. Planned is an upgrade to Netview 5, because of the
browsing facilities.
Our monitoring environment becomes more and more complex. So far
nobody can tell me why I should better be off with TEC instead of
Netview as enterprise console, besides the better ruler possibilities
which I don't need. Not even the people of IBM and Tivoli I spoke.
I wan't to ask you Netview experts if you have experienced in an
environment with many different trap-resources if I should consider
TEC (besides netview) or better stay with Netview and why.
Reading all the mail in the high quality subscriberslist gives me good
hope on some reactions.
Thanks in advance,
Greetings Cornelis Jacobi
|