I am faced with monitoring router and node outages and issuing email/paging
alerts for multiple groups of routers and nodes. Different actions must
be taken depending on which group the routers/nodes belong to as they
belong to different customers that we monitor from a central Netview. I
am not having difficulty with coding the rulesets (classic pass-on-match
and reset-on-match scenarios) to handle this, but I am in a quandary as how
to best do the implementation from a performance and ruleset maintenance
perspective. I have read James' 1998 doc on ruleset performance, but I
am still left wondering about a few things.
My goals are:
1. Minimum number of rulesets in order to minimize maintenance when adding
new customers.
2. Efficient ruleset design so that I avoid bringing nvcorrd to its knees.
Questions:
1. Is it better to have a few large rulesets that do multiple smartset
queries to determine a node's collection membership, or many small rulesets
with a single smartset query per ruleset (essentially a 'ruleset per
customer')?
2. Could a larger ruleset set that does multiple smartset queries use
common pass-on-match/reset-on-match logic, or is this a bad idea? To wit:
----> Query Smartset1
-----\
Event Trap /
\
Stream ------> Settings1 ------> Query SmartSet 2
--------------Input1------> Pass
\ \
/ on
\ -------> Query
Smartset 3----/ /--Input2------> Match
\ ----> Query Smartset1
-----\ /
-> Trap /
\ /
Settings2 ------> Query SmartSet 2 ------>/
\
/
-------> Query
Smartset 3----/
3. Is there any advantage/disadvantage to using the ROUTERDOWN_EV trap over
IBM_NVNDWN_EV when looking for router downs?
Thanks and Regards,
//Scott
--------------------------------------
Scott P. Kantner
Lead Systems Engineer
Distributed Systems Services
www.dsscorp.com
|