To: | <nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com> |
---|---|
Subject: | [nv-l] ITSA port manage question |
From: | "Kain, Becki \(B.\)" <bkain1@ford.com> |
Date: | Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:44:17 -0500 |
Delivery-date: | Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:47:40 +0000 |
Envelope-to: | nv-l-archive@lists.skills-1st.co.uk |
Hop-count: | 1 |
Reply-to: | nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
Sender: | owner-nv-l@lists.us.ibm.com |
Thread-index: | AcXrliblNMPjHfYSQHid6OSsIqZgeg== |
Thread-topic: | ITSA port manage question |
There was a post on July 7th about switch analyzer where the answer was: poll_all_ports=n Use this only if you want to optimize polling - it has no effect on what ports are being managed. All ports are managed - those not covered by the passive method will be actively polled - it simply removes the overlap. Is this still the case in 1.3 - that if we enroll a switch, all ports are managed? We have a request to have only the uplinks of switch monitored, not all the unnumbered ports. Thanks in advance. Becki Kain |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [nv-l] web console & background images ???, Michael D Schleif |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [nv-l] ? about PIX 7.0 code and active/standby using NV 7.1.4 FP3, Glen Warn |
Previous by Thread: | [nv-l] Color change, Kain, Becki \(B.\) |
Next by Thread: | Re: [nv-l] ITSA port manage question, Jane Curry |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
Archive operated by Skills 1st Ltd
See also: The NetView Web