RE: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)

Hello Dave,

 

Kind thanks for your reply. And sorry for late reply due to a travel.
 

> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:58:50 +0100
> Subject: Re: ucd-snmp vs. net-snmp (foot print)
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> 
> 2009/7/24 Juliana Purjo <[email protected]>:
> > I am working on ucd-snmp (version 4.2.6), extending a set of private company
> > MIBs. I have been told the foot-print of ucd-snmp is significantly lower
> > than that of newer 5.x.x series net-snmp - Is this true?
> 
> Probably.
> There are a number of additional MIB modules with the 5.x line,
> as well as various other features, so it's quite probable that the
> code will slowly increase in size. That tends to be true of almost
> any piece of software.


Concerning MIB modules... Having looked at 4.2.x code base, I got an

impression there is some code repetition in the agent implementations.

Also there seems to be quite a lot of static buffers (defined inside functions) 

that are mostly sitting unused eating runtime memory?

So I feel there might be possiblity to also decrease some code size

contrary to the statistically provable tendency of software sizes growing.

Easy way to save some code size - for the new code - might be to edit 

the mib2c configuration files to not generate so repetitive code constructs

(maybe using more powerful table structures)??? But maybe it is more

interesting to create new features and functionality than restructuring

old code... :-)

 

Is it quick to outline what kind of additional features are we talking here?

Thinking of replacing v4 net-snmp, is it possible to disable most of this

new weigth (with appropriate ./configure invocation)?

Below you already mention new handler mechanism for MIB modules

and wrapper code to support v4 style coding approach, which seems

necessary weight.

 

 

> > what would it take to reduce the foot print.
> 
> Please see the FAQ, which has suggestions regarding minimizing
> the size of the compiled and running software.
> 


Thanks for the pointer. Some good hints. And running

 

    ./configure --help 

 

gives some additional ideas...


> 
> > I notice the mib2c is completely rewritten which seems a benefit (I am using
> > customized configuration files and 5.x.x mib2c seems easier to work with).
> > Is there other notable reasons to consider  moving to 5.x.x?
> 
> It's not just mib2c - the v5 agent has a completely new handler mechanism
> for implementing MIB modules. Not only is it easier to write code
> for MIB tables,
> the processing should also be significantly more efficient, since
> related varbinds
> can be processed in parallel, rather than treating each varbind separately.
> 

 

Very nice.


> Large chunks of the agent infrastructure have also been completely
> re-written, to support the new handler-based architecture. In fact, the
> old v4-style approach is now simply a wrapper sitting on top of the new
> handler mechanism, so there are additional overheads with this style of code.


I am happy to read from the FAQ that most agent code written for earlier

releases should work okay with newest net-snmp (altough with some 

performance/foot print penalty).


> And of course, the v4 line is no longer being supported, so if you stick with
> this, then you are completely on your own.


Yes, I can definitively understand this point.  This is one major part of what 

triggered me to ask my question in the first place... :-)


> 
> Unfortunately, we can't really provide you with any significant implementation
> experience of running the Net-SNMP agent on embedded systems. I keep
> putting out a plea for those who have done this to report back, but nobody
> ever seems to bother.
> There's a first-draft entry in the latest version of the FAQ, but
> it is in desperate
> need of some real feedback from those who have on-the-ground experience with
> doing this.
> 
> Here's hoping....


I am wishing to be able to experiment with newest version and do some quantitative 

and qualitative comparison - it certainly seems worthwhile to me - but I am afraid 

I am not able to with the time constraints I have to deal with at the moment... :-(


> Dave


_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photo-gallery-edit.aspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

_______________________________________________
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