[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [nv-l] Master Map

To: <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Master Map
From: "Quinn, Bob" <Bob_Quinn@sra.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:51:49 -0500
Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:54:06 +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: AcTAOCQaBX2zMngnTgyY7ZPMS8j3XgAARVGZ
Thread-topic: [nv-l] Master Map
This is in AIX 714 so I don't know how it translates to NT.  It's not elegant 
and I'm sure there's a better way to do it but in AIX I created a rulest that 
looks for a Node Added trap.  It then runs an inline action that executes an 
"nvsniffer -m -n $NVATTR_2" to make sure it's in the right SmartSets.  Then it 
runs an action for "nvmaputil.sh --unmanage-node $NVATTR_2", then it queries 
the SmartSets and if it is a member runs an action for "nvmaputil.sh 
--manage-node $NVATTR_2".
I tried it by just doing the unmanage of the nodes not in the SmartSets but it 
seemed to miss too many nodes so I unmanaged everything first and then managed 
the ones I wanted.


From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com on behalf of Brian Kraftchick
Sent: Mon 11/1/2004 12:28 PM
To: 'nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com'
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Master Map

I was following this thread somewhat and just had a quick question about 
something you mentioned in your reply below.  How did you go about setting up a 
ruleset that automatically unmanages anything that is not in certain SmartSets. 
 I realize this my be an elementary question, but I am still a bit "green" with 
Netview and just found that a really useful idea.  I have thus far used the 
"elimination" entries in our seed file to get the discovery process to ignore 
particular ranges of ip addresses...but I have yet to get it completely 
accurate.  As I am working towards a "Production" map that our call center can 
use, I continue to discover, re-edit the seed file, dump the database, and 
re-discover....but as you might imagine, there always seems to be something I 
didn't catch.  The automated "unmanage" idea sounds like something that I think 
we could benefit from.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Quinn, Bob [mailto:Bob_Quinn@sra.com]
        Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:19 PM
        To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
        Subject: RE: [nv-l] Master Map
        Thanks James, and to everyone else who replied.  Ultimately there will 
be central site control.  We're consolidating from over 100 Data Centers to 10 
and there will be two NOC's.  Currently there is no NOC.
        A consultant previously came in and did set up two redundant boxes that 
managed the whole network.  They spent a great deal of effort creating very 
intricate seed files and location files.  The problem is the network changes 
frequently and no one was keeping these up.  In a very short time no one was 
using NetView at all.
        The network is distributed all over the US with a lot of slow links in 
a cascading hub and spoke design.  Some locations can have as few as 10 
devices.  Bandwidth is a big problem so the goal has been to distribute the 
polling and only send up significant events to TEC.  So far, only one of the 10 
regions has been partially set up.  NetView is allowed to discover everything 
but then a ruleset is used to unmanage anything that is not in the Cisco 
Devices, Tivoli Objects or Server SmartSet.  The Server SmartSet is created by 
hostname (all servers start with "sv").  In the end there will probably be 
about 4000 devices being monitored enterprise wide.
        The intent is to automate as much as possible and minimize network 
traffic.  I wasn't recommending a master map but was given marching orders to 
investigate its feasibility.  I think either a central NetView or having 
multiple web clients in the NOC to view the regional NetViews might make more 
        Thanks again


        From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com on behalf of James Shanks
        Sent: Mon 11/1/2004 8:54 AM
        To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
        Subject: Re: [nv-l] Master Map

        There have been some good replies to this issue, but I haven't yet seen 
anyone else ask what I take to be the pertinent questions. 
        (1) What 's the point?  Are you planning on instituting central site 
control or does your home office just want to know what's going on in the 
regions, without having to ask?  Is this supposed to be for backup or just 
        (2) Have you considered a low-overhead alternative, like having 
multiple web clients, each connected to a remote region?  Each of those regions 
could even make a separate map for you with only the pertinent devices managed 
and everything else unmanaged.  Call it the "headquarters map".  That's a lot 
easier to implement, I think, than the programming you are proposing, unless 
you are not using web clients at all. 
        (3) How big a box can you get for this?  That's a key issue here I 
think, because that may well determine what we can do.  I'm presuming that you 
were planning to have this master NetView on a separate machine. 
        (4) Of the 4000 nodes at each of the ten locations, how many actually 
fall into the class of those you want to monitor -- servers, switches, and 
routers?   Knowing that will allow you to figure out the minimum size box 
you'll need, memory-wise.  There are sizing rules in the books so you can match 
the hardware you have to what has been found in the past to be minimally  
        Consider this.  40,000 nodes is not out of the question for NetView to 
manage from one machine, given that he has good connectivity and a big enough 
box,  with lots of memory and at least a four-way processor.   So your central 
location could just start with a location.conf file to partition out the ten 
regions, and  go from there.  If your regions have their own location.conf 
files, you could just import those into the new one, and turn netmon loose.   
Just ten good seeds, a router from each region, and he ought to discover most 
of the whole thing in a just a couple of days or so. 
        My view is basically that you'd better off with a real central NetView 
rather than one which is just a shell.  Even if that turns out to be infeasible 
from a performance view, you could populate the database initially by letting 
netmon do it, rather than loadhosts.  It's easier to unmanage or even delete 
what you don't want than to load it.  Then you can try a sample our ruleset and 
update script  and see how it works.  The idea of having a shell master NetView 
is not one which has been studied, so far as I'm aware, so it's not clear to me 
that you can get much help determining in advance how feasible it is,  unless 
by chance, someone else has already done it. 
        James Shanks
        Level 3 Support  for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows
        Tivoli Software / IBM Software Group 
"Quinn, Bob" <Bob_Quinn@sra.com> 
Sent by: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com 

10/29/2004 02:11 PM 
Please respond to

[nv-l] Master Map       


        Excuse the newbie question but ...
        I have a co-worker who is not a NetView expert who would like me to 
make NetView do something it is not designed to do.  I'd like to tell him he's 
        We will have several NetView installations (7.1.4 FP2 AIX 5.1) in 
different regions across the US each discovering and monitoring devices only in 
its own region (about 4000 nodes per region - 10 regions total).  He believes 
there must be a way to create a master map that does not do its own discovery 
or polling (disabled in Options  Topology/Status Polling) but is fed from the 
regional NetViews.  If a regional NetView discovers a device and it is a 
router, switch or server (controlled by SmartSets) he proposes it send a trap 
to the master console that will then execute a script  that runs loadhosts and 
adds the device to the master map.  He also proposes that status changes 
detected by the regional NetViews initiate traps to the master and change the 
status on the master map.  I've read James info that was posted a while back on 
changing the status of an icon.  While each individual piece of what my 
coworker is proposing seems techically feasible on the surface, the solution as 
a whole doesn't seem practical to me.
        So which one of us is nuts?
        [attachment "winmail.dat" deleted by James Shanks/Raleigh/IBM] 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web