RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces

Subject:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces
From:	Stephen Hochstetler <shochste AT us.ibm DOT com>
To:	nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:10:06 -0600

Chris,

Two quick reasons to use ICMP status polling as the default polling engine:

SNMP packets are larger than ICMP packets...so you put more overhead on your network by doing only SNMP status polling.

It takes more CPU for a device to process a SNMP request than an ICMP packet, so you have adding more CPU overhead to all managed devices.

Stephen Hochstetler shochste AT us.ibm DOT 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>
RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, James Shanks [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Klingensmith, Debra L. RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Klingensmith, Debra L. RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Christopher J Petrina RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Stephen Hochstetler <= RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, James Shanks

Previous by Date:	Re: [nv-l] /etc/hosts, Stephen Hochstetler
Next by Date:	[nv-l] Another newbie Question - SNMP vs ICMP polling (setup), John Sobrinho
Previous by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Christopher J Petrina
Next by Thread:	RE: [nv-l] Unmanaged interfaces, Barr, Scott
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]