To: | "'nv-l@lists.tivoli.com'" <nv-l@lists.tivoli.com>, "'Barr, Scott'" <Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | RE: [nv-l] Efficiency of snmpd.conf |
From: | "Hill, Channing" <CHill@BBandT.com> |
Date: | Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:14:35 -0400 |
Delivered-to: | mailing list nv-l@lists.tivoli.com |
Delivery-date: | Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:17:30 +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 |
True, but
these smart sets are based on hostname, i.e. IP Hostname ~string.
When a node is discovered with a hostname that meets the criteria of the
smartset used by snmpd.conf, the proper community string is used. When I
implemented 6.0.3 way back when....., I thought that an entry had to be in
snmpd.conf before the proper community string would be used, but after testing I
was proven wrong.
What would be more efficient for the interaction of netmon and the
snmpd.conf file......to have these 4000 nodes in smart sets and then list the
smart sets in snmpd.conf or have 4000 individual entries for each node in the
snmpd.conf.
Channing
Hill
|
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | RE: [nv-l] Efficiency of snmpd.conf, Barr, Scott |
---|---|
Next by Date: | RE: [nv-l] Deletion of objects from normal topology DB, Qureshi, Fawad |
Previous by Thread: | RE: [nv-l] Efficiency of snmpd.conf, Barr, Scott |
Next by Thread: | [nv-l] Stephanie Modica/France/IBM is out of the office., Stephanie Modica |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web