nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [nv-l] snmpCollect

To: "'nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com'" <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [nv-l] snmpCollect
From: "Liu, David" <david.liu@eds.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:33:21 -0000
Delivery-date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:34:47 +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
Joe,

Thanks. The original config from our NV was 200 and I changed to 100 and 50
and back to 100. I read somewhere if the network capacity and NV box (CPU)
have no problem we can have it increased. 

Rgds,
David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com [mailto:owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com]On
Behalf Of Joe Fernandez
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 1:56 PM
To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] snmpCollect


At 08:11 AM 31-01-05 +0000, you wrote:
>Thanks Joe,
>
>There are no files in the ../snmpCollect directory (files with 0 length).
>
>My NumberConcurrentSnmp is 100 and I made change on number of objects in
the
>database (from 10000 ro 20000) only.
>
>Regards,
>David

David,

I believe the default value of NumberConcurrentSnmp is 5, so 100 sounds 
ambitious to me.

Did you increment it in steps and monitor the effect?

I would turn it back down, see if data is being collected, then increment 
it in steps and check.

Try the -S switch also and look at the configuration information that it 
writes to the trace file. This should tell you more about what is happening.



Joe Fernandez
Kardinia Software
jfernand@kardinia.com
www.kardinia.com


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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web