It's not that TMNC forwards critical traps only... it is sending off root cause
events - so if your are getting 800 node down events because a router interface
went down... TMNC will forward one event to TEC (interface down) - the idea is
to reduce the overall number of events to TEC and only send events that describe
the root cause of the network failure...
Xu is correct that there is currently no TEC customization in TMNC (unlike the
Smarts product) however, if this functionality is needed, there may be some
options - you could try calling customer support for a resolution. I am almost
postive that TMNC is using all the SMARTS codebooks and all correlation (from
the TMNC server) is based on this.
jason
"Todd E. Lewis" <telewis@PROVBANK.COM> on 07/30/99 02:09:11 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: Jason Kravitz/Tivoli Systems)
Subject: Re: Tivoli Network Connectivty Manager
Ok, so you would recommend ? Will it pass all critical traps regardless of
enterprise?
>>> Xu He <xuhe@YAHOO.COM> 07/30 2:01 PM >>>
Yes. We are using TMNC. It is certainly a nice tool
for forwarding message to TEC. The beauty of it is
that it works right out of the box. I think it only
checks the Critical or Node-up messages, and send a
summarized event to TEC. I get about 2000 messages a
day; TMNC only reports about 20~40 events, and closes
them when the device comes backup. The only slight
draw back is that when Tivoli licensed TMNC from
SMARTS (System Management ARTS), I don't think they
licensed the development kit. Therefore, you can't
create customized rules, and use the SMARTS Codebook
correlation engine, which is much faster than the TEC
rule-bases correlation engine.
Couple of things to watch for:
1. Get the TMNC 1.01 patch, there's a huge memory
leak in the 1.0 release.
2. You may have to increase the correlation interval.
Sometimes, events doesn't show up at the Netview
server for the correlation to work efficiently.
3. Your netview Map has to be very clean (i.e. no
phantom objects in the ovwdb, no old WAN segments that
didn't get cleaned upon topology changes, etc )
Hope this helps
Xu He
--- "Todd E. Lewis" <telewis@PROVBANK.COM> wrote:
> Does anyone using this product for NT? Is it worth
> the investment?
>
===
Xu He
Consulting Services Engineer
Network Solutions, Inc
http://www.netsol.com/consulting
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
|