[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

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

3597.0. "DNS v local namespace... which to chose !!" by PLUNDR::LOWEG (Don't believe a word) Wed Aug 19 1992 17:04

    
    Can anyone give me a brief one/two liner on the benefits/drawbacks of 
    DNS v Local namespace.. And what are we recommending customers to use
    or does it depend on things like size of network etc. which solution is
    selected. Plus is using the local namespace slower or faster than
    DNS..
    
    Gary Lowe NUK CSC comms..

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
3597.1	See documentation	TOOK::MINTZ	Erik Mintz, dtn 226-5033	`Wed Aug 19 1992 17:36`	12
	The planning and installation guide has a one page description of this option. But since you asked for a two line summary: Using DECdns allows multiple DECmcc systems to share registration information. On ULTRIX, DECdns is only available with DECnet/OSI. For various other considerations, see the DECmcc Planning and Installation book for the appropriate operating system. -- Erik
3597.2	PhaseV and DNS	TOOK::PURRETTA		`Wed Aug 19 1992 21:12`	5
	I will also add that if the customer intends to manage a DECnet PhaseV environment they should use DNS with MCC, and it should be the same namespace as the nodes have registered with.
3597.3	Thankyou very much..	PLUNDR::LOWEG	Don't believe a word	`Thu Aug 20 1992 08:31`	5
	Thankyou.. Gary..
3597.4	You had better learn DNS very well	CUJO::HILL	Dan Hill-Net.Mgt.-Customer Resident	`Thu Sep 10 1992 04:51`	25
	DNS V1.1 is very unforgiving. I have had limited experience with V2, but it does seem to be better in terms of managing the namespace. I was in the middle of registering 900+ SNMP entities just last Thursday night. The disk controller went bad and my clearinghouse became corrupted. This meant a complete reinstall of DNS on that node and a rebuild of the clearinghouse using directory replicas in the clearinghouse on another DNS server in the namespace. I was, unfortunately, running on very busy MicroVAX III nodes. 12 hours later, I was done. This makes my 7th DNS re-installation in less than one year. If you are not willing to put forth as much time learning DNS as you are learning DECmcc, you are headed for trouble. Actually, if you are using DNS V1.1, you're headed for trouble regardless. Spending the time to learn DNS will just make your life a little less horrifying. By the way, the advantages to using DNS: -Register the node once and it can be seen by any DECmcc management station on the network without having to copy any files. -Though I have yet to prove it, DNS supposedly has a performance advantage over a local MIR if you will be working with more than 500 entities. -Dan
3597.5		TOOK::SWIST	Jim Swist LKG2-2/T2 DTN 226-7102	`Thu Sep 10 1992 12:20`	14
	Some notes on local-dns-mir performance... The scaling problem listed in the doc for the local MIR is pretty much an Ultrix-only limitation - the VMS implementation uses ISAM files and has pretty good performance up into the several thousand entity range. The Ultrix version (due to locak of a standard ISAM on the base system) uses a combination of hash access plus a crude indexing system for retrieval. It's main scalability problem is on writes, where things start getting slow in the 1000 entity range. If your configuration is not constantly being rebuilt or heavily modified, it will perform well at several thousand entities also. In general you will find both local implementations much faster than DNS for small configurations (few hundred objects).