Yea multithreading would be the way to go, it's not very intensive, just sits hanging out waiting for its response. I was reading a paper somebody wrote on performance for SNMP vs NETCONF, which is here: http://morse.colorado.edu/~tlen5710/11s/11NETCONFvsSNMP.pdf . Seems to suggest as workload increases, netconf becomes more favorable. I haven't tested it in depth; in fact I'm having trouble finding documentation on the different calls I can make.
Thanks, Morgan On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Tyler Christiansen <ty...@adap.tv> wrote: > SNMP is less resource-intensive and faster than NETCONF. I would use SNMP > for the things you can and NETCONF for the things you can't. If you > consider NETCONF, it would probably be best to do so in a threaded, > asynchronous, or multi-process fashion. I've seen a few SNMP pollers that > don't use threads or multiple processes or callbacks, and they can get away > with it. I don't think NETCONF can. > > --tc > > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Morgan McLean <wrx...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just curious if anybody opts to use netconf instead of snmp for monitoring >> purposes? Any known downsides? >> >> SNMP seems to never really be up to date with everything that you might >> want to have a peek at. >> >> Thanks, >> Morgan >> _______________________________________________ >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp >> > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp