nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Netmon/Netview Pounding of Routers

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: Netmon/Netview Pounding of Routers
From: Leslie Clark <lclark@US.IBM.COM>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 07:29:47 -0500
Reply-to: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Sender: Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
There is an option in xnmsnmpconf on Netview that lets you limit the number
of entries
you pull from the routing table for certain routers or groups of routers or
all. I believe the
default is 800. Once your initial discovery is complete, it might be enough
to just set
this down to a low number (0?) and call it good.

Cordially,

Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking



Scott is right about netmon for HP Openview. The same problem doesn't apply
to
IBM Netview, where netmon uses a different strategy on polling.

Kostas Kottos,
ASYK



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Wilson <swilson@RPM.COM>
Date: P]lptg, 3 Dejelbq_ou 1998 8:50 ll
Subject: Re: Netmon/Netview Pounding of Routers


>With OpenView it is a netmon option (I believe -r) to stop checking the
routing
>tables on routers.  This is usually what puts the hit on the routers CPU.
I do
>not think that the same option is available on NetView however (I wish it
>were).  What people have suggested here before is to block that section of
the
>MIB on the device (this is of course device dependent) so that your
NetView
>system is not configured with a valid comm string for the route able
portion of
>the devices MIB, while still being able to see the rest of the MIB.
>
>Connie Logg wrote:
>
>> I have noticed for some time that one of our routers will have sustained
>> cpu
>> utilization of greater than 90% for many hours (sometimes a day or more
at
>> a
>> spell).  I have suspected netmon/netview, and recently unmanaged the
>> routers.  It seemed to resolve the problem.
>>
>> The November 23 issue of Network World discusses the problem (HP
Openview),
>> and indicates that there is a way around the problem without unmanaging
the
>> routers. There were no details although for netview.
>>
>> Can someone please tell me how to resolve this problem without leaving
the
>> routers unmanaged?
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> " Of course the opinions expressed here are my own. "
>>
>> Connie Logg    CAL@SLAC.Stanford.Edu  ph: 650-926-2879
>> Network Management and Performance Analyst
>> SLAC (MS 97), P.O. Box 4349, Stanford, CA 94309
>>
>> "Happiness is found along the way, not at the end of the road."
>
>
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Scott Wilson                         Email: swilson@rpm.com
>Network Management Consultant        Pager: 800-506-7348
>RPM Consulting, Inc.
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web