[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       net-snmp-coders
Subject:    Re: Designing MIBs and subagents for several pieces of equipment
From:       "Giuseppe Modugno" <g.modugno () elettronika ! it>
Date:       2008-02-08 8:28:46
Message-ID: 47AC20CE.27371.32510A () g ! modugno ! elettronika ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

On 7 Feb 2008 at 17:01, Dave Shield wrote:
> On 07/02/2008, Giuseppe Modugno <g.modugno@elettronika.it> wrote:
> But from your description, this doesn't match your setup.
> You say:
> >  ....I want to use a single Linux box with a single main and sub-agent
> > that talks to devices.

I admit that some days ago I thought the best solution was to have an agent and 
an IP address for each device... like in network equipments.
My choice to have a single agent for all devices was born from cost and not 
from performance requirements. A single Linux box (a single embedded PC) is 
more economical than many Linux boxes (many embedded PCs). This was the first 
reason why I choose to have a single Linux box.

But the thing I coudn't accept was that in one situation the informations 
should be organized in a way (table of devices), in the other situation the 
informations should be organized in a different way (no table of devices).


> That feels a more natural comparison to me.  Having the Linux
> controller mimic the various DVD systems independently
> seems somewhat artificial.

Oh, yes. This is true and this is the reason of my first question. Even to me 
this seems somewhat artificial. In fact the choice of a single agent for all 
devices was dictated merely by cost considerations (1 PC is less expensive than 
10).
In some cases the customer has two completely indipendent devices that can be 
managed by using two different IP address and two different agents. I want to 
use a single agent not for a philosophical reason, but simply for a cost 
reason.


> Note that a table-based approach also has the benefit that the admin
> could send a single SNMP query and monitor/manage several
> different boxes at the same time.   This is particularly useful when
> it comes to active management - i.e. SET requests.   I'll give you an
> example.

You are right and your example is very effective.


> But it's not me you should be taking advice from here - ask your
> customers how they would typically view what you are selling them.
> Would they naturally think of getting a single system that contains
> (say) three recorders and two players?   Or would they think of this
> as five separate systems (of two different types), that just happen to
> be wired together?
> 
>    They're the ones you need to keep happy - not me!
> And until you know how they would prefer to view such a configuration,
> you can't really make a sensible decision regarding the appropriate
> way to structure the MIBs.

Ok, now I have a better understanding regarding the benefits of tables 
approach against the simpler approach without tables.


> Anyway - it's 5pm now, and I've a choral rehearsal to get to.
> I'll leave you to the tender mercies of the rest of the team until
> tomorrow morning.

I hope you had a fun yesterday :)

Thank you very much Dave...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]