This is in AIX 714 so I don't know how it translates to NT. It's not elegant
and I'm sure there's a better way to do it but in AIX I created a rulest that
looks for a Node Added trap. It then runs an inline action that executes an
"nvsniffer -m -n $NVATTR_2" to make sure it's in the right SmartSets. Then it
runs an action for "nvmaputil.sh --unmanage-node $NVATTR_2", then it queries
the SmartSets and if it is a member runs an action for "nvmaputil.sh
--manage-node $NVATTR_2".
I tried it by just doing the unmanage of the nodes not in the SmartSets but it
seemed to miss too many nodes so I unmanaged everything first and then managed
the ones I wanted.
________________________________
From: owner-nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com on behalf of Brian Kraftchick
Sent: Mon 11/1/2004 12:28 PM
To: 'nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com'
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Master Map
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Quinn, Bob [mailto:Bob_Quinn AT sra DOT com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:19 PM
To: nv-l AT lists.us.ibm DOT com
Subject: RE: [nv-l] Master Map
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
Please respond to
nv-l
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]
<<winmail.dat>>
|
