2009/2/19 ntwrkd <[email protected]>: > Why would I use one versus the other?
Well, one significant difference is in the handling of SET requests. pass_persist() just has a single invocation for a SET request, and each varbind is processed separately. That could lead to problems if any of the assignments in the SET request could potentially fail. An embedded perl module uses the full multi-pass processing (I believe), so can handle SET request reliably. Another difference is that the pass_persist script will handle each varbind separately for GET* requests as well. An embedded perl module will be passed all of the related requests in one go. That might allow for more efficient processing. Particularly if retrieving the necessary data is relatively costly. > When would extending the agent via C modules be viable? A C-code module is more suitable for a stable MIB structure. You said originally that "[the OIDs]frequently change using a manual process." If you're modelling a MIB table, and simply meant that rows will be added and deleted dynamically, then a C module would be a sensible approach. But if it's the design of the MIB structure itself that's constantly being changed, then a C-code module would involve frequent re-coding and re-compilation. (It's also not really in line with the SNMP ethos - MIBs are expected to be stable) Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ 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
