Re: [NV-L] Slow Response from nmdemandpoll

2010-09-13 06:18:32
Subject: Re: [NV-L] Slow Response from nmdemandpoll
From: John M Gatrell <John.Gatrell AT uk.ibm DOT com>
To: Tivoli NetView Discussions <nv-l AT lists.ca.ibm DOT com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:18:24 +0100

Try the following.
Choose just one IP address (the most reliable or the nearest) to do snmp polls of a router (A loopback address if Cisco).
Inform NetView of the HSRP address with the percent character.

So in the seed file I would have the following

%    #Router1 and Router2 hsrp address     #Router1 Discover router
=    #Router1 Lock router poll address
$    #Router1 Prefer snmp to ping

Alternatively, make sure router1 and router2 have same SNMP community string and use the '-V' option
that is described in 'man netmon'. This will involve editing the netmon.lrf file and running 'updatelfr netmon'

While I think of it, might be worth making sure the HSRP addresses respond with the same community string,
both on the routers and in NetView's config.

reset_ci is to be run if you change the hostname or the IP address, or hardware of the NetView box itself.
So reset_ci is probably not relevant to yourself.

It should not be necessary to run demand polls regularly. I only run a demand poll if
I suspect NetView does not know the latest config change of a router.

John Gatrell

We're getting delayed responses when running demand poll against devices.
 What's the best way to troubleshoot this issue?
 We looked in netmon.trace and saw false positive DUP_ADDR errors on HSRP addresses.
 In what case would we use reset_ci?  Would we use it to resolve the slowness with demand poll?

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

NV-L mailing list
NV-L AT lists.ca.ibm DOT com
Unsubscribe:NV-L-leave AT lists.ca.ibm DOT com
http://lists.ca.ibm.com/mailman/listinfo/nv-l (Browser access limited to 
internal IBM'ers only)