RE: snmpbulkget mismatch??

> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of yuchen lu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:56 PM

>  "snmpbulkget -v2c -c amail 4.4.4.31 hrStorageIndex 
> hrStorageType hrStorageDescr hrStorageSize hrStorageUsed"
> 
> and the following is what bulkget returned, notice index 6:
> 
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.1 = INTEGER: 1
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.1 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageRam
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.1 = STRING: Physical memory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.1 = INTEGER: 1034416
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.1 = INTEGER: 1011584
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.3 = INTEGER: 3
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.3 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageVirtualMemory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.3 = STRING: Virtual memory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.3 = INTEGER: 5227372
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.3 = INTEGER: 1104976
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.6 = INTEGER: 6
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.6 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageOther
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.6 = STRING: Memory buffers
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.6 = INTEGER: 115452
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.10 = INTEGER: 93392
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.7 = INTEGER: 7
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.7 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageOther
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.7 = STRING: Cached memory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.7 = INTEGER: 679732
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.31 = INTEGER: 1499489
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.8 = INTEGER: 8
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.8 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageOther
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.8 = STRING: Shared memory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.8 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.32 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.10 = INTEGER: 10
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.10 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageVirtualMemory
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.10 = STRING: Swap space
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.10 = INTEGER: 4192956
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.33 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.31 = INTEGER: 31
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.31 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageFixedDisk
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.31 = STRING: /
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.31 = INTEGER: 2579465
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.34 = INTEGER: 11375
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.32 = INTEGER: 32
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.32 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageFixedDisk
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.32 = STRING: /sys
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.32 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.35 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.33 = INTEGER: 33
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.33 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageFixedDisk
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.33 = STRING: /proc/bus/usb
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.33 = INTEGER: 0
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.36 = INTEGER: 20946
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageIndex.34 = INTEGER: 34
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageType.34 = OID: 
> HOST-RESOURCES-TYPES::hrStorageFixedDisk
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageDescr.34 = STRING: /boot
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageSize.34 = INTEGER: 101086
> HOST-RESOURCES-MIB::hrStorageUsed.37 = INTEGER: 5490265
> 
> It seems that bulkget has automatically shift "hrStorageUsed" 
> upwards by three positions.

	Look again.  The index for hrStorageUsed is all messed up.

> It looks like that it couldn't 
> get the usage information for the device type 
> "hrStorageOther", but I suppose "null" or "0" should be 
> returned instead or "hrStorageOther" devices should be 
> filtered out. I think there are must someone out there 
> encountered this problem before, please give me some 
> suggestions. Thanks in advance!!

	I tried to reproduce this problem with getbulk, but I was unable to.  I do not have an hrStorage table available to poke at, but I suspect the problem is there.  Please examine your hrStorageTable using get-next requests and see if the index problem can be seen that way.  You could also try snmpwalk, and similar get-bulk requests on other tables in an effort to isolate the problem.


	HTH,

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
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