Wow... that was a quick response Leslie! Even better that if this
forum was the normal Tivoli support! :)
Yes, I got the the -a and -A mixed up when I did my testing. Should
have used the -a. What I also noticed, when I stop / restart netmon,
or do a netmon -y to recheck the seedfile, all the new objects appear
in both maps. (We have a LOT of updates). The other network group with
the small map do not want to see this. It can't be avoided though, can it?
What would you recommend: We are not starting from scratch. Our existing
database has around 40k objects. What is the better solution here?
Two NetViews, even though NV can support multiple maps? Can multiple
maps even be recommended for this case? Everything I have heard seems
to say, "stay away from multiple maps"!
Thanks for your insight...
Regards,
Kevin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leslie Clark [mailto:lclark@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 2:31 PM
To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Multiple Map Madness
Well, your case is exactly why Netview has the ability to support multiple
maps.
The ovtopofix command has both a -a and a -A option (if you remember to use
the right one) to prevent the problem you mention. My main concern with
using
multiple maps is mostly a problem early on in an implementation, and that
is
the need to delete an object from all maps before it can be rediscovered.
To really minimize the administrative burden of multiple maps you would
need two Netviews. The network traffic is not really significant in most
cases.
The hardware costs and licensing issues might be.
Cordially,
Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
Detroit
"Gow Kevin (KTSO
4)" To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
<kevin.gow@csfs.c cc:
om> Subject: [nv-l] Multiple Map
Madness
09/04/2002 07:49
AM
A question for the gurus:
One of our network groups would like to see a map in NetView
with only the objects that they are resposible for. This consists
mainly of routers and switches, but not all of them. They do not
want to see servers and firewalls. They want full control of the
map and objects to add, delete and organize the layout of
objects, ie, a RW map.
The other network group, which currently maintain the RW map,
will still keep the default map with all the objects in. This is the
map that support and operations use.
As you can already guess, there would be a vast overlap of objects
between the maps. A ovtopofix will create havoc with the "small"
map. (Deleted objects will suddenly re-appear etc). New servers
will make their presence known. This is not what they would like
to see.
How could this be achieved? Is it possible at all? I hear someone
say: "use scope and the web interface". But we have no clear
naming conventions for IP addressing so I cannot use a location
file. What do the experts think? How could I solve this problem?
One solution would be to have another complete NetView with
a specially tailored seed file. Would that be the only way?
We are currently running 6.0.3 on AIX but 7.1.2 is almost ready
to go.
--
Kevin Gow
CREDIT SUISSE FINANCIAL SERVICES
Technology and Operations
Network Management (KTSO 4)
Dorfmattweg 8a, CH-3110 Münsingen, Switzerland
Tel: +41 31 358 81 61
Fax: +41 31 358 79 80
E-mail: Kevin.Gow@csfs.com
http://www.csfs.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
|