It's working here just fine..
>From seed file
!@oid 0 #quickly do not put in non-snmp nodes
HTH.. rick..
Sylvia Koch wrote:
> Sylvia Koch@EMPRISE
> 21.07.98 23:33
>
> In NetView V5, it should be possible to prevent the discovery of nodes
> based on the absence of SNMP.
> Specify as statement in the seedfile:
> @oid 1.3.6.1.*
> This specifies the total group of SNMP-nodes with OIDs beginning with
> 1.3.6.1. Non-SNMP-devices are not included in this group, thus they are
> excluded from discovery.
> It works as described in a test environment.
>
> Sylvia Koch
>
> Leslie Clark <lclark@US.IBM.COM> am 21.07.98 04:30:18
>
> Bitte antworten an Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
> NetView et alia <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
>
> An: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
> Kopie: (Blindkopie: Sylvia Koch/Emprise)
> Thema: Netview growing Objects Database
>
> I've just reviewed the documents from a training session I attended on V5,
> and
> it does not
> appear to me that you can prevent the discovery of nodes based on the
> absence
> of SNMP.
> Somebody will correct me if I am wrong. You can, however, exclude address
> ranges, so if
> you have a convention for addressing low-priority devices like
> workstations,
> you can now
> exclude them more easily than you could before. You can also cause
> non-snmp
> devices
> to be discovered as unmanaged, which you probably know, with an entry in
> oid_to_type.
> That will help with cpu and network traffic, but will not reduce the object
> count, of course.
> Exclusion by range can be done with V4, it is just a lot easier
> (!xxx.xx-xx.*.*) in V5.
> Now for some unsolicited advice. What you have is NOT a network management
> problem,
> but an organizational problem. I see this with some customers, from time to
> time. In fact I
> expect you will see a flaming notice from James S. any minute now. The
> people
> who
> implement the network, the people who administer the addresses, and the
> people
> who
> administer the management tools must all work together. Here's how it
> works
> best:
> 1) The network guys apply for an address from the address administrator.
> 2) The address administrator assigns a name to go with that device (DNS,
> etc.)
> 3) The network guys configure the device, including the SNMP fields for
> location & contact,
> and trap destination (the Network Management Station)
> 4) Some sort of change control notice is sent to the administrator of the
> Network Management
> Station to tell them about a new device that needs managing (or it does not
> get
> managed).
> 5) The administrator of the NMS adds the device to the seedfile, or ensures
> that the ranges
> in the seedfile will allow the device to be discovered, and then discovers
> it.
> If the implementation team does not report new and changed addresses, their
> devices don't
> get managed. Make it a rule. Get buy-in from management.
> You can tell that I am a strong proponent of seedfiles, especially
> restrictive
> seedfiles. It is the
> only way to keep garbage out of the database and maximize performance. And
> I
> have done
> more than a few of these things. Tiny networks can get away with
> runaway-discovery. Yours
> is of a respectable size, and should be controlled. Hope this helps.
> Cordially,
> Leslie Clark
> IBM Global Services - Network & Systems Management - Detroit
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >I've got one NV 4.1 on AIX monitoring a wide multi-site network with 15,
> >000 IP adresses, and only 1500 SNMP devices to manage. Undesirables
> objects
> >consuming CPU, RAM, Disk ressources and corrupt performances so i need to
> >reduce the Objects Database. Seedfile seems not to be the way, while IP
> >adresses of SNMP devices can change (two differents teams to install /
> >manage the entire Network).
> >Is it possible to limit Netview Object Database to only SNMP devices ?
> >I was told that with NV 5.1 discovery can be defined based on SNMP sysOID,
> >like 1.3.6.1.2., is this right, and could
> >this improvement solve my problem ?
> >Thanks for your help
|