nv-l
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [nv-l] Netview / TEC co-existence

To: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [nv-l] Netview / TEC co-existence
From: Stephen Hochstetler <shochste@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:34:19 -0600
Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:35:01 +0000
Envelope-to: nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk
In-reply-to: <91D03459CD3BE04DB5C9894069B252340541AA95@omaexch03.csg.csgsystems.com>
Reply-to: nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com
Sender: owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com

One, it depends on your enterprise size.....and on your machine size.

If you have some good filters for traps (like an MLM) in front of NetView, you could turn off trap forwarding in case of a storm.
Second, will you have just one interface or two interfaces on the box? Trap traffic can impact an interface. Traps without an MLM are usually UDP, so if they can't get delivered, they get dropped. Are you putting the TEC DB on the same box too?

A small production would need 2 to 4 way (depends on how small)
A medium production would need a 4 way. If this is large environment, I would not put them on the same box.
You will need to size TEC, NV and the OS...and make sure you have the right amount of memory....and swap. I would recommend two interfaces....and have trap traffic come in an interface separate than TEC events coming in.

Filesystems -- you should either be stripping certain filesystems....or making sure they are on different spindles so that you don't cause any one disk to do double duty. This is the fastest way to bring a machine that is busy to what looks like 'idle', because it will always be in wait state for IO. The more harddrives the better with single filesystems spread on different drives to utilize the spindles (without striping).

Stephen Hochstetler shochste@us.ibm.com
International Technical Support Organization at IBM
Office - 512-838-6198 (t/l 678) FAX - 512-838-6931
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com

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

Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd

See also: The NetView Web