On 18 August 2011 17:09, Lewis Adam-VNQM87 vnq...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, in the latter case we just
time out the request rather than attempt to send a too big (or any
other) error response. Is this the correct behavior?
The spec that Wes quoted
, August 19, 2011 10:32 AM
To: Lewis Adam-VNQM87
Cc: net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: consistent response handling for running out of resources
On 18 August 2011 17:09, Lewis Adam-VNQM87
vnq...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
As far as I can tell
On 19 August 2011 11:11, Lewis Adam-VNQM87 vnq...@motorolasolutions.com wrote:
I just did a grep through the net-snmp code [5.7 as well] and I can't
see anywhere where the snmpSilentDrops stat gets updated.
Am I missing something?
Probably not.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if this is an
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:33:43 +0100, Lewis Adam-VNQM87
vnq...@motorolasolutions.com said:
LA As I have mentioned, we do have an embedded system with limited
LA resources and it would be interesting to know how unix-style agents cope
LA with the same sort of test.
RFC3416 has this to say:
@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: consistent response handling for running out of resources
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:33:43 +0100, Lewis Adam-VNQM87
vnq...@motorolasolutions.com said:
LA As I have mentioned, we do have an embedded system with limited
LA resources and it would be interesting to know how unix
: consistent response handling for running out of resources
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:08:50 +0100 Lewis wrote:
LAV We are trying to provide a consistent response if a manager
attempts to
LAV send too many sub-requests within a single request. We have
finite
LAV resources and so at some point a malloc
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 13:08:50 +0100 Lewis wrote:
LAV We are trying to provide a consistent response if a manager attempts to
LAV send too many sub-requests within a single request. We have finite
LAV resources and so at some point a malloc will fail and depending where it
LAV does, the net-snmp
