Thanks Dave. One problem we have with this bug is it is very difficult to reproduce; I am trying to create some samples which will simulate the failure.
The indexes are accessible. Thanks for the clarification on what a 'gap' or '?' might be; it will help me in creating the samples :) The current hypothesis is we have a buffer overrun, and its messing with the secondary index. MV Dave Shield wrote: > On 31/08/06, Mike Varley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Don't you hate it when people withhold information? :) > > > a) You might say that - I couldn't possibly comment > b) You get used to it after two or three years on the list :-( > >> So here is a more accurate sample of the output: >> >> id(index1) num(index2) ipaddress someotherinfo >> 095 2 192.168.24.253 klm >> DE8 ? 192.168.21.34 ? > > > Hmmm.... so the '?' appears in one of the index columns as well. > Are these indexes accessible or not? > > If they are, then the original analysis probably still stands. > If not, then I'd need to have another look at the code (which is > unlikely to be before the weekend, I'm afraid). > > > >> So, as you can see, our secondary index is one of those 'gaps' -- we did >> a test to see what happens if you perform a GETNEXT and provide >> (a) just the 1st index (index1), or >> (b) a secondary index (index1.index2) that is valid but non-existant, > > > No - that's not quite what I meant. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. > Try a single GETNEXT request, containing two (valid) OIDs from the > previous row of the table - one referring to the instance immediately > above one of the '?'s and one referring to the instance immediately > above a valid value in that row. > What do the results of that GETNEXT look like? In particular, do > the instance subidentifiers of the two OIDs returned match each other? > Normally, a GETNEXT of two instances should walk through the table in > step with each other - returning matching instance subidentifiers each > time. The '?'-style output would normally arise if these two got out > of sync. > > > >> By 'gaps' do you mean the MIB code is replying with NULL? Or just an >> incosistant value? > > > No - they'd be perfectly reasonable values returned. Just not > referring to the same row. > For example: > > GETNEXT myCol myLoc > RESPONSE myCol.1 myLoc.1 > GETNEXT myCol.1 myLoc.1 > RESPONSE myCol.2 myLoc.2 > GETNEXT myCol.2 myLoc.2 > RESPONSE myCol.3 myLoc.5 > > That last response would result in a '?' being displayed for the > "myLoc" column in row #3. OK? > > > Dave > > PS: I may not respond for a couple of days - away visiting friends. > I'll pick up on any unfinished business when I get back. > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Varley -= SOMA Networks =- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-348-1578 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
