| 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