[Top] [All Lists]

[nv-l] udp_recvspace vs tcp_recvspace

To: nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Subject: [nv-l] udp_recvspace vs tcp_recvspace
From: Leslie Clark <lclark@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:44:04 -0400
Delivered-to: mailing list nv-l@lists.tivoli.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 19:46:37 +0100
Envelope-to: nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
List-help: <mailto:nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com>
List-post: <mailto:nv-l@lists.tivoli.com>
List-subscribe: <mailto:nv-l-subscribe@lists.tivoli.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:nv-l-unsubscribe@lists.tivoli.com>
Mailing-list: contact nv-l-help@lists.tivoli.com; run by ezmlm

For systems that are short of memory and being flooded with unsolicited
traps that cannot be turned off for a while, I wonder if this approach
would be appropriate: reduce the 'no' setting for udp_recvspace to
something rather smaller, but leave tcp_recvspace at the correct value.
Would this cause trapd to miss out on incoming traps, but still get all of
the Netview - generated ones? Trapd is handling the flood fine, but nvcorrd
can't keep up. Just wondering... My next suggestion is going to be an MLM
on the same box.


Leslie A. Clark
IBM Global Services - Systems Mgmt & Networking
(248) 552-4968 Voicemail, Fax, Pager

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

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