Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 15:52 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> > That's with both 5.3.pre4 and 5.2.2.rc6 installations (though
>> > I don't think the version is relevant here).
>>
>> You don't happen to have a 4.2.3 *begging* ?
>
> Not immediately.
> I
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Try removing all these copies of the MIB, and check that
> "snmptable" complains and bombs out. (Since it relies on
> the structure of the MIB definitions, it's one of the few
> tools that won't work without the MIB file).
- s n i p -
[EMAIL PRO
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 15:52 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> You mean you don't get that weird 'b9stIndexTotals'
Correct.
Just b9stCounterName ... b9stCounterReverse
> > That's with both 5.3.pre4 and 5.2.2.rc6 installations (though
> > I don't think the version is relevant here).
>
> You don'
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK - I've tried running this script, using the MIB file from
> http://www.bayour.com/bind9-snmp/BAYOUR-COM-MIB.txt
>
> Bad news, I'm afraid - it works perfectly.
Thanx a lot for trying. You mean you don't get that weird 'b9stIndexTotals'
(and/or b9st
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:21 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > Do you think you could hack together a dummy "standalone" version
> > of this extension script? One that doesn't rely on the underlying
> > software that it's intended to monitor.
> >The values that it reports don't matter - just
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:34 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> Any other idea why I can't get rid of the 'b9stIndexTotals' column?
>
> H...
>
> If I recall correctly, this is implemented using a 'pass_persist'
> script - yes?
Yes. In perl.
> Do you
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:34 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Any other idea why I can't get rid of the 'b9stIndexTotals' column?
H...
If I recall correctly, this is implemented using a 'pass_persist'
script - yes?
Do you think you could hack together a dummy "standalone" version
of this ex
Quoting Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> [ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
>> any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
>> or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
>>
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
> any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
> or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
> Keep discussions to the list, where others can both l
[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On Wed,
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:32 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> >> Check the agent code - what does it return when asked for an OID
> >> that happens to belong to an index object? It ought to completely
> >> ignore such object - just as if they don't exist at all.
>
> With 'completely ignore...',
Quoting Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [sorry for taking so long, but I've been busy with other things]
>
> Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 10:46 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>>> If I read your explanation correct above, you're not supposed to
>>> s
[sorry for taking so long, but I've been busy with other things]
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 10:46 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> If I read your explanation correct above, you're not supposed to
>> see the index (baculaStatsIndex etc) AT ALL!?
>
> Correct.
[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On Sat,
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 22:28 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > SNMP (or strictly SMI) ordering is defined to walk tables in
> > column-major order...
> That I have to keep at hand and experiment with, because I
> didn't _see_ it if you know what I mean...
OK - Consider a simple table, with three
[Just replying for the sake of the mail archives.]
Quoting Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's a strange bug somewhere...
>
> - s n i p -
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# table OID_BASE.6
> SNMP table: enterprises.bayourCom.snmp.baculaStats.baculaClientsTable
>
> baculaClientsIndex
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 14:21 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> But if I understand you correctly, [the client table] should
>> be split into two tables, one with the client info and one
>> with the job name info?
>
> Yup.
> Everything at the same level
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 14:21 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> But if I understand you correctly, [the client table] should
> be split into two tables, one with the client info and one
> with the job name info?
Yup.
Everything at the same level of nesting can be grouped into the
same table. Diffe
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Eh, no. For each job _ID_. The 'System' here is only _my_
>> name of a specific job group...
>
> Sorry - my mistake. I'd missed that extra level of nesting.
> But for each job ID, there are the same five statistics - yes?
> [...]
> But regardless of th
On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 11:07 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I just to check a few details.
> > Are the statistics associated with a particular system,
> > or an individual job? (Or both?) And is the list of
> > statistics fixed, or variable?
>
> Eh
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 12:17 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> > Basic rule - all objects in a given table must use
>> > exactly the same indexing structure. If the indexing
>> > is different, that means a different table.
>>
>> Is there any way I can m
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 12:17 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> > Basic rule - all objects in a given table must use
> > exactly the same indexing structure. If the indexing
> > is different, that means a different table.
>
> Is there any way I can modify the index in such a way
> that only need on
Quoting Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> # Job names
>> OID_BASE.4.1.3.1.1 = Client1_System
>
> B
>
> The indexing of this table has suddenly changed. That's
> not allowed. Judging by the MIB definitions below,
> this entry (and the next few) should read
>
> OID_BASE.4.1.3.1 = Client1_
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 10:17 +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Output from 'snmpwalk' (OID_BASE is a shorthand for the
> OID to the 'baculaStats' described below; '.1.3.6.1.4.1.8767.2.3'):
> - s n i p -
> # Number of clients:
> OID_BASE.1.0 = 4
> # Client index:
> OID_BASE.4.1.1.1 = 1
> OID
24 matches
Mail list logo
