Thanks, Leslie.
I reread that section of the Installation
Guide (Determining which data collector application to use), and the last
bullet makes it sound as if you need the DB if you are going to do the Data
Warehouse. That seems to be in conflict with the next-to-last sentence of
the previous paragraph.
Just so you don’t have to hunt up
the doc, here are the two parts I’m referring to:
You do not
want to install the DB2 product. If you are not forwarding data to Tivoli Data
Warehouse, then you do not need the DB2 product to use the SNMPv1 MIB
Collector.
AND
The SNMPv1
MIB Collector (snmpCollect) can forward data to Tivoli Data Warehouse.
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
From: nv-l-bounces@lists.ca.ibm.com
[mailto:nv-l-bounces@lists.ca.ibm.com] On
Behalf Of Leslie Clark
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 11:57
AM
To: Tivoli
NetView Discussions
Subject: Re: [NV-L] snmpCollect vs
nvcollectord
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