[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

5485.0. "Suggestion: ALARM poll mult. attributes & Boolean Support" by SUBWAY::YANNIOS () Fri Aug 13 1993 18:28

    
    Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to define alarm
    rules to check a number of attributes residing upon a given
    entity within the network.  
    
    For example a customer is polling a VAX 6510 that is functioning as
    an area router for such conditions as area reachability of 30 areas,
    Ethernet errors, traffic rates, etc.  When this system is being
    polled by the MCC station residing on a standalone workstation, the
    system can easily approach system wide resource exaustion of
    available process slots, among other things, due to numerous
    NML_xxxx processes created to service the polls that are servicing
    the enabled alarm rules. (Perhaps there is a less resource intensive
    approach that may reduce overhead in the above scenario)
    
    Not sure if this has been suggested elsewhere in this conference
    but, if not, it is suggested that this functionality be provided to
    allow for the definition of alarm rules that can examine multiple
    attributes from the same entity and support boolean operations...
    
    eg. EXPRESSION(NODE4 .DNA_NODE.FOO ( LINE MNA-0 SYSTEM BUFFER
        UNAVIALBE > 0) & (USER BUFFER UNAVAILABLE > 0) ) 
    
    instead of two separate polls going out, the information would be
    obtained in one poll.  
    
    Are there any plans for such functionality?  Is this practical?  Is
    this feasible?
    
    
    
                                                                     
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
5485.1MOLAR::DFLAT::PLOUFFEJerryMon Aug 16 1993 12:499
RE: -.1

  It's practical -- It's feasible -- It just hasn't been done yet!

  Future project direction is currently being planned.  We will keep
  this kind of request in mind.


                                                             - Jerry