Leslie Clark wrote:
>
> 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.
>
When we had one address for a node we had similar problems. That's why
we added the second address hoping it would help.
> 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.
>
Haven't tried this but thanks for the warning.
We were selecting an unmanaged segment and using the manage option to
force Netview to manage all the nodes in that segment.
> 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 will look at the options in xnmsnmpconf.
BUT sometimes everything is discovered and the submaps created correctly
with the same settings.
>
> 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.
We are using the names in /etc/hosts in the seed file.
Why would the all interfaces on a node have the same name? In our setup
there are two LANS, the ethernet LAN is 10.5 and the FDDI LAN is 10.0
and each node has an interface to each LAN. So the hosts file has one
entry for each LAN. Typical /etc/hosts entries for a node are:
10.0.136.96 o2122.ods.onl.ip
10.5.8.96 o2122.sws.onl.ip
Our entries in the seed file are:
o2122.ods.onl.ip
o2122.sws.onl.ip
ovtopodump lists two interfaces for the node:
1170/1169 o2122.sws.onl.ip Up 10.5.8.96
1170/1171 o2122.sws.onl.ip Unmanaged 10.0.136.96
>
> Cordially,
>
> Leslie A. Clark
> IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
> Detroit
--
Robin
email: robin.james@thalesatm.com
tel: +44 (0) 1633-862020
fax: +44 (0) 1633-868313
>
>
> 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)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
|