| Title: | DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT. |
| Notice: | Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187 |
| Moderator: | TAEC::BEROUD |
| Created: | Mon Aug 21 1989 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Jun 04 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 6497 |
| Total number of notes: | 27359 |
I have recently upgraded to version 1.3 of mcc with the expectation
that some of the problems with 1.2 would be fixed. The 1.2 problems are
still evident along with a number of new problems.
Problem 1.
You cannot graph historical SNMP data. This actually worked in version
1.2 of mcc but does not function now. I set the scope of interest time
to a period in the passed with a duration that finishes before the
current time. The interval time I used coicides with the interval time
used to record the data. When I graph the data such as a count on an
SNMP interface I get a value of 1 repeated on the graph. Using the same
scope of interest time using the operations menu returns the
appropriate data.
Graphing historical statistics does not work at all . The graph seems
to now go off into never never land and does not graph any data even
though the little man continues to run as if the graph was functioning.
The data is generally available through the command line interface
without any problems.
Problem 2.
When I use the ip reachability poller to check for reachability I will
occassionally get spurious failures. I have set the retries to 5 and
the timeout to 15 seconds and am only polling every 10 minutes. These
spurious failures also occur when a "real" failure occurs. That is if
I loose a link that provides connectivity to 10 remote stations that I
am polling, in addition to the 10 failures associated with the link
going down there are usually a number of other reachability events that
will occur at the same time as the first events. These will clear the
next time they are polled 10 minutes later.
Problem 3.
I now find that some of my recorded data seems to be invalid. I
recently went to look at the past utilization on an SNMP interface. I
found that the utilization remained exactly the same for a number of
hours. When I went to look at the counters using the command line
interface I found that the counters returned what I will have to
describe as "odd" values. Could this be a result of the upgrade
procedure and should I restart from scratch the recording and delete
the old recorded data ?
Problem 4.
The system seems to get a large number of "rule * encountered an
exception" errors when there is more than one user of DECmcc on the
system. The help desk here has a window open to MCC to keep them
informed of major network events. When they are on the system there is
a great increase in the number of these errors. I have looked at the
system and cannot seem to find any indication that the system is low on
resources and both accounts accessing DECmcc are set up with account
resources greater than those suggested in the manuals and release
notes.
Any suggestions ?
I have already entered some of these problems into the version 1.2 QAR
system last year without any response. Should I re-enter them into the
1.3 QAR system ?
Thanks
Harry
Thanks
Harry Kuhnen
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5239.1 | CANAJN::V_GILBERT | Wed Jun 23 1993 08:04 | 9 | ||
Re Problem 1 Graphing of snmp interface historical statistics is broken. The problem has been identified and an engineer is looking at it. We hope to fix it for the MUP. The problem has already been CLD'd. Verna | |||||
| 5239.2 | TOOK::R_SPENCE | Nets don't fail me now... | Wed Jun 23 1993 13:01 | 3 | |
What harware and operating system are you using?
s/rob
| |||||
| 5239.3 | VMS | CGOOA::KUHNEN | Fri Jun 25 1993 11:47 | 18 | |
Operating system VMS 5.5-1
MCC V1.3
Vaxstation 4000 Model 60
56 MB of memory
I was able to get rid of the errors with two processes running by
increasing my working set to 35000 from 25000 even though the MCC
process that is running alarms only has on average 23000 pages in it's
working set. Could there be a problem in the code related to paging
under certain conditions ?
Thanks
Harry
| |||||