Re: How to differentiate snmpwalk & snmpgetnext request
valantina arumugam <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.net-snmp.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Yes. It's a tradeoff between consistency and up-to-date information. Finally we have to give up one. ------------------------- Even if we increase the caching time, We can expect a walk req. just before the expiry of caching time which will lead to refresh of table & inconsistent data if any inst. add/remov-ed. Thanks to everyone. Thanks Valantina Dave Shield <[email protected]> wrote: 2008/5/8 valantina arumugam : > 1. Say the cache time is 6 sec & XX Table contains 8 instance. > snmwalk request comes at 3 rd sec No. The loading of the cache would typically be triggered by the first SNMP request. So the beginning of the snmpwalk request would mark the *start* of the cache timeout period. Of course, if it takes longer than 6 seconds to walk the whole table, then yes - the cache would expire during this traversal, and you could potentially end up with inconsistent data. The answer there would be to increase the lifetime of the cache. This should be set to something slightly longer than the expected time to walk the table. It's a tradeoff between consistency and up-to-date information. Dave --------------------------------- Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ 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