2008/5/8 Pamidipati Suresh-G20238 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Regarding the example you mentioned, why do you want to gather all the
> instances of the table in the 1st getnext itself when snmpwalk is given.?
I believe that Valantina is concerned about the data changing while the
walk is taking place.
For example, consider a table containing two columns and (initially)
two columns.
Walking this table would look like:
GETNEXT table --> this.1
GETNEXT this.1 --> this.2
GETNEXT this.2 --> that.1
[*]
GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> endOfTable
The client could then display the two rows quite happily:
this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2
But suppose that a new row (3) was created at exact moment that the
walk had got to the point marked [*]
The remaining sequence of GETNEXT requests would then be
GETNEXT that.1 --> that.2
GETNEXT that.2 --> that.3
GETNEXT that.3 --> endOfTable
leaving the client with the inconsistent table
this.1 that.1
this.2 that.2
(?) that.3
Alternatively, suppose the second row was deleted at [*]
The walk would then finish
GETNEXT that.1 --> endOfTable
giving the client a table:
this.1 that.1
this.2 (?)
Loading all the data at the start of the walk would allow the client
to retrieve a consistent set of information (albeit one that was
slightly out of date).
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
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
