I believe that part of the migration is a re-ordering of the fields/entries
in the trapd.conf file. As trapd is extremely sensative to positonal
changes, this would be something to watch out for as well as just having
the entry present.
James Shanks
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
"Radcliffe Jr, Arthur W" <arthur.radcliffe@AETNA.COM> on 03/12/99 01:03:38
PM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on
NetView <NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
cc: (bcc: James Shanks)
Subject: Re: Netview 4 to 5.1 Upgrade chktrapd.c
Not knowing what the errors meant, and since I was using a test box, I went
ahead with the migration and it appeared to me, all the trap definitions
that were flagged as greater than 99 words, did get merged
into the new trapd.conf file. From what I could make out in the update.log,
it appeared to be a successful merge. However, I do plan to do it over and
follow the guidelines exactly, that is remove all the entries with
descriptions(in my case) greater than 99 words, and upgrade again. I
realize there may other problems I am not aware of.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schiffinger Ralph 2100 [SMTP:Ralph.Schiffinger@ERSTEBANK.AT]
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 1999 2:30 AM
> To: NV-L@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: AW: Netview 4 to 5.1 Upgrade chktrapd.c
>
> Hello there,
> you can safely ignore those errors if it really is just the length of the
> description fields.
> As far as i've seen, especially Cisco and Optivity tend to make
> documentations instead of descriptions...
> Regards, Ralph.
>
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Radcliffe Jr, Arthur W [SMTP:arthur.radcliffe@AETNA.COM]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 11. Marz 1999 20:25
> An: NV-L@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu; Schiffinger Ralph 2100
> Betreff: Netview 4 to 5.1 Upgrade chktrapd.con script
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> While doing a Netview Version 4 to 5.1 upgrade, I ran the chktrapd.con
> script, and received a number of errors stating that the length of the
> Description field of traps, was greater than 99 words. I was wondering
> why
> the script would check for that, why the length of the Description field
> is
> an issue to Netview 5.1 and whether we need to do anything to those
> description fields.
|