> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of mn kh
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 11:42 PM
> Following is my mib as printed by print_mib function:
> Children of mmsc(8):
The printout appears to be counting down..?
> when i run the subagent and the snmpd and i try to walk this
> tree this is what happens in the logfile:
>
> var_jAgentX -> Handling an exact request...
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX ->
> name=enterprises.jinny.generic.mmsc.msend-total
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX -> It's not a table
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 4 var_jAgentX -> header_generic failed for mmsc!
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 3 var_jAgentX -> Handling an inexact request...
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX -> (before) name =
> enterprises.jinny.generic.mmsc.msend-total
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX -> (before) vp->name =
> enterprises.jinny.generic.mmsc.msend-total
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX -> (after) vp->name =
> enterprises.jinny.generic.mmsc.msend-total
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 5 var_jAgentX -> (after) name =
> enterprises.jinny.generic.mmsc.msend-total.0
> 10:48:56.641 ( 4858) 6 inexact_request_handle -> pass=0
>
> it thinks that i have sent an exact request.
No, that's just the search pattern. Note how it switches to "inexact
request" when the exact doesn't match. Nothing to worry about here...
> Furthermore,
> below is an extract of the same request when i used a
> dynamically loaded subagent:
That's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
> and I think that the subagent agentx should output the same thing
...to the log? I don't know why you think this, but I assure you that
you are headed down the wrong path with this line of thinking.
> In fact I am fetching the counters from a shared memory, so
> when the counter isn't found a return NULL should be passed
> and snmp should go to the next child in the MMSC tree.
Whoah!
You haven't provided any details of how you've implemented your MIB,
but I think this may be a problem. Although it is valid SNMP to omit a scalar
during a walk, most implementation methods do not support this. IF "type=6"
means "integer", then you should probably return a 0 valued integer instead of
null.
> But
> this is not what's happening. In fact in my shared memory I
> only have the counters:
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB:smsnot-alive(88) type=6
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB:smsnot-error(87) type=6
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB:smsnot-ok(86) type=6
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB:smsnot-total(85) type=6
> and so on. So snmp is walking the tree thousands of times
> more then he should and i think its because he understood
> that i sent an exact request.
I think it's because of a bug in your MIB implementation. Is this a
table or a set of scalars? Look carefully at what you return when you reach
end of MIB.
> So when i use the simple
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./snmpwalk -c public localhost mmsc
> Timeout: No Response from localhost
> the request times out and if i use
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] bin]$ ./snmpwalk -t 10 -c public localhost mmsc
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB::smsnot-total.0 = Counter32: 0
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB::smsnot-ok.0 = Counter32: 0
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB::smsnot-error.0 = Counter32: 0
> JINNY-MMSC-MIB::smsnot-alive.0 = Counter32: 8
This does not look like "thousands of times". In fact it looks exactly
correct given your statement above of what data you have. Please clarify.
HTH,
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
