On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:35:58 +0200 Geert wrote: GDP> Technically I agree with leaving the UDP buffers alone (unless they are GDP> explicitly set in the configuration) like you suggest. GDP> However, the consequences will be that more traps will get lost and bigger GDP> packets might not make it when people upgrade to version 5.2, just because GDP> their OS default happens to be smaller than our originally hardcoded 128K.
Note that my original reply did explicitly specify upping the buffer size for snmptrapd and snmpd. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
