Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:34:28 +0100
Subject: Re: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)
From: d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk
To: jpu...@live.com
CC: net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
2009/8/3 Juliana Purjo jpu...@live.com:
But I fail to see the need
to have separate buffers for each
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:43:34 +0100
Subject: Re: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)
From: d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk
To: jpu...@live.com
CC: net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
2009/7/30 Juliana Purjo jpu...@live.com:
Concerning MIB modules... Having looked at 4.2.x code base, I
Hello Dave,
Kind thanks for your reply. And sorry for late reply due to a travel.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:58:50 +0100
Subject: Re: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)
From: d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk
To: jpu...@live.com
CC: net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
2009/7/24 Juliana
Hello list,
I am working on ucd-snmp (version 4.2.6), extending a set of private company
MIBs. I have been told the foot-print of ucd-snmp is significantly lower than
that of newer 5.x.x series net-snmp - Is this true? If true, how big is the
difference, and what would it take to reduce
