| To: | <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com> | 
|---|---|
| Subject: | RE: [nv-l] Netmon on NT | 
| From: | "Barr, Scott" <Scott_Barr@csgsystems.com> | 
| Date: | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:54:49 -0600 | 
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:04:33 +0000 | 
| Envelope-to: | nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk | 
| Reply-to: | nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com | 
| Sender: | owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com | 
| Thread-index: | AcO593c1Wc5+66aQRfGkKVUeXqXWIAAdlXCg | 
| Thread-topic: | [nv-l] Netmon on NT | 
| Isn't 
the 20 coded as 10ths of a second = 2 seconds? 1000 milliseconds (1 second) 
would be a long ping time even in a serial 56K network. 20 
seconds for a ping time out is an eternity. And remember with SNMP polling, 
failure on a first attempt will result in doubling the timeout value the second 
attempt and doubling the timeout again on a third try ad nauseum. I don't know 
if the ICMP timeout is doubled each retry with pinging but I know it is for 
SNMP 
 | 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> | 
|---|---|---|
| 
 | ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Antw: Re: [nv-l] Some nodes not getting discovered, Dietmar Gaulhofer | 
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [nv-l] Pinging a device to add it to the map, Federico Vidal | 
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] Netmon on NT, Gareth Holl | 
| Next by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] Netmon on NT, Christopher J Petrina | 
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] | 
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web