On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:19:48 +0530 Suresh (Suresh) wrote:
PS> The second setup is as follows.
PS> Here the proxy just acts as v2 to v3 converter and viceversa.
PS>
PS> Manager---------------
PS> | | |
PS> | | |
PS> Proxy Proxy Proxy
PS> | | |
PS> | | |
PS> | | |
PS> Host1 Host2 Host3
PS>
PS> I would like to know which setup will have minimum cpu utilization and call
PS> processing impact, considering that in future that
Both should work, but the first (shared proxy) would require the manager to
specify a non-default context to talk to the hosts.
The second setup will consume more resources (since there are 3 proxies
running), but wouldn't require contexts.
--
NOTE: messages sent directly to me, instead of the lists, will be deleted
unless they are requests for paid consulting services.
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>
Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-users>
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server.
Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very
own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
