nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OV_Node_Down_Unix vs. OV_Node_Down on TEC?

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: OV_Node_Down_Unix vs. OV_Node_Down on TEC?
From: James_Shanks@tivoli.com
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 10:10:34 -0500
Huh?  I'm confused.  58916865 is Node down, not Node Up.  Node Up in
58916864.  If your Node Down is not followed by Node Up then it will not
clear the TEC console (which is a TEC issue really and not a NetView one).

James Shanks
Team Leader, Level 3 Support
 Tivoli NetView for UNIX and NT



"Ray Westphal" <rwestphal@erac.com>@tkg.com on 01/02/2001 09:59:57 AM

Please respond to IBM NetView Discussion <nv-l@tkg.com>

Sent by:  owner-nv-l@tkg.com


To:   "NV List (E-mail)" <nv-l@tkg.com>
cc:
Subject:  [NV-L] OV_Node_Down_Unix vs. OV_Node_Down on TEC?



Hello Everyone.

I manage a 6.0.1 NetView server running on AIX 4.3.3.

What is the difference between the 2 subject node down events? I had the
specific interface down trap 58916867 occur at 8:19 this morning. Then the
node down specific trap 59816865 trap followed. By the next status poll
cycle a minute later I had a specific interface up 58916866 trap and a
specific node up trap 58916865 occur. I spoke with the server admins. and
there was a brief outage at the time.

TEC showed an OV_Node_Down_Unix event for the first node down trap but
never
cleared with the (58916865) node up trap. I even sent node up traps through
the Server Setup/Diagnose menu.

Earlier in the day, a node down occurred with another non-Unix device. It
was simply reported as OV_Node_Down. The subsequent node up cleared or
closed the TEC alert.


Thanks in advance.

Ray Westphal
Enterprise Rent-A-Car

_________________________________________________________________________
NV-L List information and Archives: http://www.tkg.com/nv-l


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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web