On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:07:49 -0700
David Wolfskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:11:36PM +1000, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> > ...
> > Out of curiosity, how does bsnmpd compare to your approach with regards to
> > impact on the system. It is part of 7.0 , not sure about previous versions,
> > and it is definitely a more standard and cross platform approach , with
> > support @ NOC / alerting side of things.
> >
> > (for what is worth, i've only used net-snmpd , not bsnmpd )...
>
> Understood. As I understand it, an SNMP daemon (whether bsnmpd or
> net-snmpd) would require some configuration on the remote host, and I
> wasn't willing to require that.
fair enough. I don't know about the default config of bsnmpd, but "default" in
net-smpd, IIRC, means you access as public, pretty open. Not sure if there are
MIBs for the information you need though.
> Also, the only times I have used SNMP, it has been using a version that
> did not support encryption in any form (as for as I know), and since
> some of the transit was over facilities we don't control, I thought it
> would be a bit more sensible to use SSH for the transport.
but do you use encryption with your current system?
[...]
> Mind, I'm not especially keen on re-inventing stuff that already works
> (or can be reasonably persuaded to work). But in this case, running an
> SNMP daemon seemed to fail to meet my (admittedly, somewhat self-
> imposed) requirements.
hey , your requirements are yours :) I was just curious to know why snmp didnt
cut it.
B
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
"Gravity cannot be blamed for people falling in love."
Albert Einstein
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
