RE: [nv-l] Master Map
2004-11-01 12:31:41
I
apologize....I guess it would help if I also included our system
setup.....NetView 7.1.3 on Win2K
Bob,
I
was following this thread somewhat and just had a quick question about
something you mentioned in your reply below. How did you go about
setting up a ruleset that automatically unmanages anything that is not in
certain SmartSets. I realize this my be an elementary question, but I am
still a bit "green" with Netview and just found that a really useful
idea. I have thus far used the "elimination" entries in our seed file to
get the discovery process to ignore particular ranges of ip addresses...but I
have yet to get it completely accurate. As I am working towards a
"Production" map that our call center can use, I continue to discover, re-edit
the seed file, dump the database, and re-discover....but as you might imagine,
there always seems to be something I didn't catch. The automated
"unmanage" idea sounds like something that I think we could benefit
from.
Thanks!
Brian
Thanks James, and to
everyone else who replied. Ultimately there will be central site
control. We're consolidating from over 100 Data Centers to 10 and
there will be two NOC's. Currently there is no NOC.
A consultant previously came in and did
set up two redundant boxes that managed the whole network. They spent
a great deal of effort creating very intricate seed files and location
files. The problem is the network changes frequently and no one was
keeping these up. In a very short time no one was using NetView at
all.
The network is distributed all over the
US with a lot of slow links in a cascading hub and spoke design. Some
locations can have as few as 10 devices. Bandwidth is a big problem so
the goal has been to distribute the polling and only send up significant
events to TEC. So far, only one of the 10 regions has been partially
set up. NetView is allowed to discover everything but then a ruleset
is used to unmanage anything that is not in the Cisco Devices, Tivoli
Objects or Server SmartSet. The Server SmartSet is created by
hostname (all servers start with "sv"). In the end there will probably
be about 4000 devices being monitored enterprise wide.
The intent is to automate as much as
possible and minimize network traffic. I wasn't recommending a master
map but was given marching orders to investigate its feasibility. I
think either a central NetView or having multiple web clients in the NOC to
view the regional NetViews might make more sense.
Thanks again
Bob
From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com on behalf
of James Shanks Sent: Mon 11/1/2004 8:54 AM To:
nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com Subject: Re: [nv-l] Master
Map
There have been some good replies to
this issue, but I haven't yet seen anyone else ask what I take to be the
pertinent questions. (1) What 's
the point? Are you planning on instituting central site control or
does your home office just want to know what's going on in the regions,
without having to ask? Is this supposed to be for backup or just
information? (2) Have you considered
a low-overhead alternative, like having multiple web clients, each connected
to a remote region? Each of those regions could even make a separate
map for you with only the pertinent devices managed and everything else
unmanaged. Call it the "headquarters map". That's a lot easier
to implement, I think, than the programming you are proposing, unless you
are not using web clients at all. (3) How big a box can you get for this? That's a key issue here
I think, because that may well determine what we can do. I'm presuming
that you were planning to have this master NetView on a separate
machine. (4) Of the 4000 nodes at
each of the ten locations, how many actually fall into the class of those
you want to monitor -- servers, switches, and routers? Knowing that
will allow you to figure out the minimum size box you'll need, memory-wise.
There are sizing rules in the books so you can match the hardware you
have to what has been found in the past to be minimally
sufficient. Consider this.
40,000 nodes is not out of the question for NetView to manage from one
machine, given that he has good connectivity and a big enough box,
with lots of memory and at least a four-way processor. So your
central location could just start with a location.conf file to partition out
the ten regions, and go from there. If your regions have their
own location.conf files, you could just import those into the new one, and
turn netmon loose. Just ten good seeds, a router from each region,
and he ought to discover most of the whole thing in a just a couple of days
or so. My view is basically that
you'd better off with a real central NetView rather than one which is just a
shell. Even if that turns out to be infeasible from a performance
view, you could populate the database initially by letting netmon do it,
rather than loadhosts. It's easier to unmanage or even delete what you
don't want than to load it. Then you can try a sample our ruleset and
update script and see how it works. The idea of having a shell
master NetView is not one which has been studied, so far as I'm aware, so
it's not clear to me that you can get much help determining in advance how
feasible it is, unless by chance, someone else has already done
it. James Shanks Level 3
Support for Tivoli NetView for UNIX and Windows Tivoli Software /
IBM Software Group
"Quinn, Bob"
<Bob_Quinn AT sra DOT com> Sent by: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
10/29/2004 02:11 PM
|
To
| <nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [nv-l] Master
Map |
| Excuse the newbie question but ...
I have a co-worker who
is not a NetView expert who would like me to make NetView do something it is
not designed to do. I'd like to tell him he's nuts.
We will
have several NetView installations (7.1.4 FP2 AIX 5.1) in different regions
across the US each discovering and monitoring devices only in its own region
(about 4000 nodes per region - 10 regions total). He believes there
must be a way to create a master map that does not do its own discovery or
polling (disabled in Options Topology/Status Polling) but is fed from
the regional NetViews. If a regional NetView discovers a device and it
is a router, switch or server (controlled by SmartSets) he proposes it send
a trap to the master console that will then execute a script that runs
loadhosts and adds the device to the master map. He also proposes that
status changes detected by the regional NetViews initiate traps to the
master and change the status on the master map. I've read James info
that was posted a while back on changing the status of an icon. While
each individual piece of what my coworker is proposing seems techically
feasible on the surface, the solution as a whole doesn't seem practical to
me.
So which one of us is
nuts?
Thanks
Bob [attachment "winmail.dat" deleted by James
Shanks/Raleigh/IBM]
|
|
|