Alfredo Dimaunahan wrote: > Regarding the "snmptrap" (not snmptrapd, right?) startup time, should we > consider this a bug? Or will it be improved in next versions? I also tried it > in net-snmp version 5.1.2 and same behavior was noticed.
No, this isn't a bug. There's significant startup "cost" by nature. snmptrap hasn't been designed to be a bulk notification sender. Some of the startup time (i.e. for MIB loading) could potentially be reduced by proper configuration, though. YMMV. +Thomas -- Thomas Anders (thomas.anders at blue-cable.de) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ 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
