Hi all,
I am working on a Windows migration project and my customer is using version
5.1.3.1 of net-snmp. I understand that net-snmp is mainly developed/tested on
UNIX but I am wondering if anyone has positive/negative experience with Windows.
I am looking for information related to 2
When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that net-snmp
is calling handlers for tables that are next in the oid table sequence.
This can take a long time to respond if the subsequent tables are also empty.
Is there a reason why net-snmp goes to the next table - when a
On 19 October 2012 18:50, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
When I walk a column in one table, and that table is empty I see that
net-snmp is
calling handlers for tables that are next in the oid table sequence.
That is correct.
Is there a reason why net-snmp goes to the
Dave,
If you start a walk on a column in table, the walk ends when it reaches the end
of that table.
So realistically calling the handlers for other tables should not occur in this
scenario.
Do you concur?
What I am seeing is that if I walk a column in a table, netsnmp calls a lot of
Ok - I see what you are saying - a getnext has to find the next instance for
any given oid.
So I guess having empty tables back to back is what is timely.
-Original Message-
From: dave.shi...@gmail.com [mailto:dave.shi...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Shield
Sent: Friday, October 19,
On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:53, Joan Landry joan.lan...@overturenetworks.com wrote:
Dave,
If you start a walk on a column in table, the walk ends when it reaches the
end of that table.
The *walk* does, but the underlying GetNext request doesn't. Try turning on
packet dumps for a walk. You
