nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nv-l] node discovery and submap display

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] node discovery and submap display
From: "Leslie Clark" <lclark@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:06:33 -0500
Just a couple of comments.

First, it is not necessary and it is in fact often a bad thing to
put more than one address of a node in a seedfile, especially
at older code levels. It is Netview's job to find all of the interfaces
on a device, and it will do it just fine with a single entry.

Second, the business of whole nodes being unmanaged when
you unmanage a segment containing one of their interfaces was
accepted as a defect and I believe fixed in 6.0.3.

Third, discovery of things as unmanaged seems to vary from
release to release, and from seedfile to seedfile. There is also
the option in the xnmsnmpconf dialog that contributes to whether
nodes on a particular subnet are discovered managed or not.

I would clean out that seedfile and re-evaluate. If you are making
it off the addresses in the /etc/hosts file, switch to making it off of the
names in the hosts file (which should be the same for all interfaces
on the node) and sort it for unique entries. Or  dump out the nodes
you have discovered already and make the seedfile from that.

Cordially,

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



                                                                                
             
                    Robin James                                                 
             
                    <robin.james@thal       To:     NetView Discussion          
             
                    esatm.com>               <nv-l@lists.tivoli.com>            
             
                                            cc:                                 
             
                    02/18/02 12:20 PM       Subject:     [nv-l] node discovery 
and submap    
                                             display                            
             
                                                                                
             
                                                                                
             
                                                                                
             



We have a seed file for some 100+ nodes. Each node has two entries
because a node has two interfaces, an ethernet interface and an FDDI DAS
interface.

When the Netview databases are cleared and the GUI is started we are
getting different results on the submaps. Sometimes the maps show
everything as expected. Other times the maps show that a large part of
the maps is unmanaged.

When it does not work properly the output from ovtopodump shows there
are ethernet and FDDI networks:

CLASS    OBJECT ID      OBJECT               STATUS    IP ADDRESS
TOPOINFO    967         IP Internet
NETWORKS   1289         sws.onl.ip           Up        10.5.0.0
           1499         ods.onl.ip           Marginal  10.0.0.0

The output also shows the segments:

SEGMENTS   1290         sws.onl.ip.Segment1  Up
           1500         ods.onl.ip.Segment1  Unmanaged
           1503         ods.onl.ip.Segment2  Down
           1610         omc.onl.ip.Segment1  Unmanaged
           1622         sws.onl.ip.Segment2  Up
           1638         ods.onl.ip.Segment3  Up

The output for the nodes shows a lot of the nodes as unmanaged - here's
a selection:

NODES       969/968     od02u.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.34.12
            969/1199    od02u.sws.onl.ip     Down      10.0.34.12
            969/1200    od02u.sws.onl.ip     Down      10.0.98.12
            969/976     od02u.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.162.12
           1132/1131    o2222.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.176
           1132/1135    o2222.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.176
           1134/1133    o2192.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.152
           1134/1141    o2192.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.152
           1144/1143    o2262.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.212
           1144/1137    o2262.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.212
           1146/1145    o2152.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.120
           1146/1147    o2152.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.120
           1150/1149    o2212.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.168
           1150/1129    o2212.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.168
           1152/1151    o2202.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.160
           1152/1139    o2202.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.160
           1164/1163    o2132.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.108
           1164/1159    o2132.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.108
           1168/1167    o2142.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.112
           1168/1157    o2142.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.112
           1170/1169    o2122.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.96
           1170/1171    o2122.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.96
           1174/1173    o2112.sws.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.88
           1174/1165    o2112.sws.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.88
           1176/1175    o2032.ods.onl.ip     Unmanaged 10.0.136.28
           1176/1161    o2032.ods.onl.ip     Up        10.5.8.28
When we select the segment that is unmanaged and force Netview to manage
it the status for all the nodes goes to managed.

Anyone have any ideas why we would get wildly different results with the
same seed file?

We are using Netview 5.1.3 on Digital/Compaq TRU 64 UNIX.

Thanks
--
Robin
email: robin.james@thalesatm.com
tel:   +44 (0) 1633-862020
fax:   +44 (0) 1633-868313

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: nv-l-unsubscribe@lists.tivoli.com
For additional commands, e-mail: nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com

*NOTE*
This is not an Offical Tivoli Support forum. If you need immediate
assistance from Tivoli please call the IBM Tivoli Software Group
help line at 1-800-TIVOLI8(848-6548)





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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web