Todd,
I would give 2 reasons for my opinions. First, if you are forwarding
events to TEC, you want no possible actions delaying or stopping events
being forwarded. If you have action blocks in that ruleset, then you have
a possibility of that "external" process that is being called to interfere
with the forwarding of events. It always seems to happen in the middle of
the night when there are problems like that.
The second reason is that if you look back in the archives over the years
of this mailing list, you will find recommendations from product support
that you do NOT have actions in your ruleset that forwards to TEC. I had
some problems back in V5 of NetView that went away when I moved the action
boxes to a different ruleset. This required creating an action ruleset
called from ESE.automation.
You say you are not having problems. That is good. If you do have
problems later and you call support for help, I would assume that the first
step they would have you do is split your ruleset so that all Actions were
called from ESE.automation rulesets. Plus, make sure everything ends in
a BLOCK from ESE.automation so that you have no socket problems down the
road.
note: in my opinion, making these changes actually make rulesets easier to
manage because it groups activities in specific rulesets categories. You
have a TEC forward ruleset, you can have a group of action rulesets and you
can have a group of filter rulesets (for nvevents).
Kind regards,
Stephen Hochstetler shochste@us.ibm.com
International Technical Support Organization - Austin
Office - 512-436-8564 FAX - 512-436-8701
ITSO redbooks at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com
|