> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:59:58 +, Dave Shield
> said:
DS> The easiest approach would probably be for the dynamic
DS> entries to be written to the persistent config file (/var/net-snmp),
DS> the whole internal config cleared, and then all the config files
DS> (including /var/net-snmp/
2009/2/10 Tushar Gohad :
> So is it reasonable to clear out all the 'monitor' entries
> on SIGHUP?
Well, have a think about what things are going to look
to the network administrator - simply using this without
necessarily knowing what the code actually does.
By the principle of least astonishme
Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:58:00 -0700, Tushar Gohad
>> said:
>
> TG> My question is: were the 'release' routines left out intentionally,
> TG> say to avoid cleaning out someone else's (subagent, command line
> TG> trap addition etc) monitor entries? Or is there a safe
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:58:00 -0700, Tushar Gohad said:
TG> My question is: were the 'release' routines left out intentionally,
TG> say to avoid cleaning out someone else's (subagent, command line
TG> trap addition etc) monitor entries? Or is there a safe way to clean
TG> the entries out?
Hello folks,
In the current net-snmp version, there are no 'release' routines
corresponding to parse_mteTriggerTable(), parse_simple_monitor() or
parse_default_monitors(). This is causing the 'monitor' definitions not
getting cleaned out on a SIGHUP. In case of linkUpDownNotifications for
