|
Your v2 devices should respond to a v1 request. The Counter64 would be the main reason for using the new one. If you intend to monitor interface bandwidth utilization, and the interfaces in question are high-speed and actively used, then the data you collect with Counter32 may be inaccurate, but worse, you won't know if it is accurate or not. So for me, if there is an intention to monitor or collect bandwidth using Netview, then I would do the database. I have not implemented this for any customers yet, though I practiced the database install on a linux vmware system and that went ok. Check the archives for other thoughts on the subject. Cordially, Leslie A. Clark IT Services Specialist, Network Mgmt Information Technology Services Americas IBM Global Services (248) 552-4968 Voicemail, Fax, Pager
A question to the all-knowing and wise NetViewers out there… I’m about to install NV 7.1.5 (not an upgrade) in our dev environment, and am trying to decide whether to go with the snmpCollect (snmpv1) daemon or the nvcollectord (snmpv1/v2) daemon. As you probably already know, the latter would involve installing DB2. We do have v2 devices, but won’t they respond to a v1 request? Is the only reason to go with v2 for the Counter64 capability? Thanks in advance for your wisdom and input! Peace, Blane Robertson Capgemini / Dallas Enterprise Systems Management/ Capgemini Energy Office: +1 214 879 1666/ www.us.capgemini.com Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t, you’re right! – Henry Ford 
_______________________________________________ NV-L mailing list NV-L@lists.ca.ibm.com Unsubscribe:NV-L-leave@lists.ca.ibm.com http://lists.ca.ibm.com/mailman/listinfo/nv-l (Browser access limited to internal IBM'ers only) _______________________________________________ NV-L mailing list NV-L@lists.ca.ibm.com Unsubscribe:NV-L-leave@lists.ca.ibm.com http://lists.ca.ibm.com/mailman/listinfo/nv-l (Browser access limited to internal IBM'ers only) |