Hello. As part of a network I'm working on, I've install HPOpenView NNM (first time, I've only used free/cheap stuff in the past) on a Sun Ultra5, and it's performance is less than stellar. It takes between 30 seconds and 5 minutes to traverse from one map to another (either up or down). This occurs no matter how many (or few) objects are on each submap. My two questions are: 1> Is this normal (or did I do something wrong with the software setup) 2> If you are running NNM, what platform are you using, and do you find it satisfactory in responsiveness/etc. Thanks! -Scott
If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway; - increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, install 512); - be ready to be disappointed; Through HP OV is not bad piece of software. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote:
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:08:52 -0700 From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: HP Openview Slowness.
Hello.
As part of a network I'm working on, I've install HPOpenView NNM (first time, I've only used free/cheap stuff in the past) on a Sun Ultra5, and it's performance is less than stellar. It takes between 30 seconds and 5 minutes to traverse from one map to another (either up or down). This occurs no matter how many (or few) objects are on each submap.
My two questions are:
1> Is this normal (or did I do something wrong with the software setup) 2> If you are running NNM, what platform are you using, and do you find it satisfactory in responsiveness/etc.
Thanks! -Scott
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
"Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway;
I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :)
- increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, install 512);
Noted, thanks.
- be ready to be disappointed;
:)
Through HP OV is not bad piece of software.
It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers. Thanks for all the responses everyone. -scott -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where | |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use our own monitoring system, and the only complain I just have from the 24x7 staff is the absence of the graphic map. To solve this, I need some package (like 'xfig') allowing me to dray graphic map in the vector style, and define some attributes (color, blinking, etc) dynamically (defined by the external or embedded script). THat's enougph for the middle-size networks. What's about HPOV and other mosters - good tools for the static networks having good resources to execute such big programs. I do not know an examples when NOC people are satisfied from this tools (usially they are used to draw the map, and mgrt or 'snmpstatd' to build reports and graphs). Btw, see http://noc.bn.ru/~alex/MON/ for an example of 'snmpstatd' output. Alex. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote:
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:51:33 -0700 From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: HP Openview Slowness.
"Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway;
I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :)
- increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, install 512);
Noted, thanks.
- be ready to be disappointed;
:)
Through HP OV is not bad piece of software.
It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers.
Thanks for all the responses everyone. -scott
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where | |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
And the worst thing, If someone think _SNMP IS SUITABLE PROTOCOL_ he is wrong. In case of CISCO (as an example) we was caused to use boths 'SNMP' and 'rsh show ....' methods to get appropriate information. I think those who developed SNMP was the childs of the hell (it's terrible example of _how you should not develop protocols_; for example, compare 'rsh -t 120 -l monitor "show ip route"' request and requesting ip route table by SNMP; compare 'sh interface Serial0' and SNMP (10 - 20 different MIB tables with the very euristic INDEXES), try to ask _how much BGP router does router have_ or _how mach packets was received by ISL sublink_ etc etc. If someone answer _that's because of CISCO don't like SNMP_ I can't agree - no, thet's because SNMP is wrong protocol at all. Such protocol should be: - ascii text based; - with domain-like names, with the asterisk; - based on reliable UDP and/or TCP; - use something like MD5 checksumming for the simple protection. For example, I'd like to ask 'BASE 'router' GET interface Serial* ' and get ORIGIN router.interface.Serial1 in-packets: 223334 u32 in-errors: 1122 u23 in-bytes: 124563874 u64 .... ORIGIN router.interface.Serial2 .... (1) TEXT mode, no terrible binary octets, etc etc; (2) SIMPLE variables, withouth terrible MIB descriptions (they are not usefull here); (3) Another hierarchy (interface.variable, not variable.index) (4) simple addition private variables CISCO.in-bad-frames: 223344 instead of (as now) vendor.cisco.mgrt....interface.lapsha-na-palochke.INDEX etc etc... And then, if the protocol (SNMP) is BAD, don't think the tools for this protocol should be GOOD. // And compare this with the WEB interface implemented into some new routers and switches - simple, robust, can be used easily, and 100 times more flexible. Through it's only simple interfaces with the operator, not for the tools, for now. Alex. On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Scott Call wrote:
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:51:33 -0700 From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: HP Openview Slowness.
"Alex P. Rudnev" wrote:
If you begin to use commercial soft after free one, then: - don't drop free soft, ypu'll use it anyway;
I know :) I'm doing HPOV because the 'suits' want a pretty network map on a projector somewhere. MRTG/etc will still be very present in the system :)
- increase memory, CPU and disk up to 2 - 4 times (if you had 64RAM, install 512);
Noted, thanks.
- be ready to be disappointed;
:)
Through HP OV is not bad piece of software.
It's not, but I am disappointed it's not more router-centric. I appreciate the need to monitor workstations, but I've got multitudes more network devices that workstations/servers.
Thanks for all the responses everyone. -scott
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Scott Call |"How could this be a problem in a country where | |Router Geek | we have Intel and Microsoft"-AlGore on y2 k | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Scott Call