Thank you VERY much for that answer. I definitely learned a lot and getting it from you is about the same as reading the source code myself. ;-
A few comments below. Regards, Jim Mohr > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Dave Shield > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009 15:38 > An: Mohr James > Cc: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: net-snmp 5.4.1 writing to deprecated OIDs <SNIP> > >From a purist point of view, these objects were fundamentally broken, > and should have be removed. But pragmatically, individual > administrators were using them to solve real-world problems, > and probably didn't care about the technical deficiencies. > But they *would* care (and complain) if these objects > disappeared and all of their scripts broke. It was easier > for us, and better for the Net-SNMP community, to leave these > objects working. But working implies that "something" is being written to the OID. This definitely seems to be what is happening with 5.4.1. > Some time later, the code to supply the raw data was > significantly re-written, and it became straightforward to > provide a consistent > implementation of the average objects. At that point, the > MIB definitions > were clarified and updated, to agree on an explicit fixed > time period (60s) for calculating the averages. Although deprecated, can we say the values in the OID are more or less accurate? (or at least as accurate as this mechanism allows?) The reason I am asking is that we are using SolarWinds to monitor and report on these values, and my boss does not want to give it up. Can we continue to use the OID as a reasonable measure of CPU usage? ("should" is a different story) > > Another machine has net-snmp 5.2.1. I create the same CPU > activity and > > snmpget does not indicate any change. > > What you are probably seeing is the difference between a > 1-minute average (which will change noticeably over a short > period of monitoring) and a lifetime average (which won't). Aha! Makes sense! > > So it is even more confusing > > Indeed - see the comments above about inconsistent implementations. It is definitely reassuring to have you confirm it is confusing. ;-) > > and seems as if this functionality has been re-added. > > It's not that it has been removed and re-added. > Rather that it has recently been implemented consistently, > using a sensible time period. (A lifetime average was of no > practical use to the administrator!) Can you tell me when it changed from the lifetime average to a 1-minute average? We have 5.2.1 on some machines and it seems that this is the lifetime average. > I hope this serves to explain the history behind these objects. Definitely!!!! -- Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ 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
