Well, Steve, MLM did not used to automatically disable midmand from listening
for traps. If it does now, great. I don't install, configure, run, or debug
code on MLM, and my experience was that it caused more problems than it solved.
If you aren't using it for status polling, then sure, I don't see why you
couldn't install it that way. But you certainly cannot do the same kind of
"attended" thing you can do with NT. In that case, midmand and netmon actually
talk with one another, and that code is most definitely not in the UNIX flavor.
Since what Maggie was doing was an initial install for status monitoring I still
would recommend that she not install MLM on the same box as NetView.
Tivoli (NetView for UNIX) L3 Support
Steve Francis <steve.francis AT COMMSERV.UCSB DOT EDU> on 08/12/99 11:29:52 AM
Please respond to Discussion of IBM NetView and POLYCENTER Manager on NetView
<NV-L AT UCSBVM.UCSB DOT EDU>
To: NV-L AT UCSBVM.UCSB DOT EDU
cc: (bcc: James Shanks/Tivoli Systems)
Subject: Re: FW: Problem for represent meaningful information in actionbox
of ruleset & Concerns about using MLM
James Shanks wrote:
> (1) MLM and NetView for UNIX should not be installed on the same box. So
> is no reason to change the trap port, but if for some strange reason you
> on MLM and NetView for UNIX on the same box, then midmand must get a new port.
I'm a little worried that you say that. It seems to be a good thing to do so to
but perhaps I'm missing something. When you install MLM on the Netview box, it
automatically disables MLM from listening on the trap ports, and leaves that
function to Netview.
The reason I think its a nice thing to do is that the MLM has more flexible
thresholding and analysis than native Netview, and lets you use the APM more
(if you dont have any other MLMs)
Is there really a reason not to run it on the same (AIX) box?