[mrtg] Re: MRTG being "chatty"?

[PAUL WILLIAMSON]

Chatty - that's a nice technical term.

Anyway, all systems like MRTG (including MRTG) do "get" requests.
They are all the same size, and the data returned is the same size.

How that is any more or less chatty than something else, I have no idea.
HP OpenView is similar to BB, just like all the other players.  Do these 
people know that:

a) HP uses Big Brother on there clustered servers?
b) There is a "plug-in" for OV to use MRTG (I think it's called OVMRTG)?
c) Comparing MRTG to OpenView is like comparing apple pickers 
to a Grocery store chain?

If they have issue with MRTG, how about using RRDTool and writing your
own, "less chatty" collector?  The only concern they may have a leg to 
stand on is that if you want to do traffic and errors, that would require two separate requests with MRTG, where some of the more "fancy" 
systems could do it in one.

If they have any real questions about exactly who is using MRTG, refer 
them to Internet2 or DSL Reports.  They both use MRTG extensively 
for montitoring.  I know there are many other large organizations using 
it, but those are two biggies.

Paul

>>> Kerry Cox <kerry.cox at ksl.com> 08/08/02 09:46AM >>>

Greetings. I have been using MRTG for about 3 years now quite
successfully. It handles all our internal network monitoring as well as
the bandwidth use for over 11 other major companies who share our OC3
pipe. 
We just recently got a major contract to work with a large entity piping
bandwidth throughout the world through us via satellite. (I also am part
of Bonneville Satellite) I am looking to implement MRTG as a quick means
of measuring bandwidth use. 
However, this entity has some reservations regarding our use of MRTG and
states that it is too "chatty" for them. They recommend our using
something else. Just not MRTG.
My question is, is there some validity to this claim? Is MRTG less
"chatty" or less promiscuous in network use than some other network
monitoring product? They want us to only use HP OpenView, though having
never used it I am baffled that they would want something like that over
a free, Open Source solution. Also, I do not see how the two have
anything in common. I was under the impression that OpenView was more
like Big Brother and monitored systems and process uptime.
Is there any way to make MRTG less "chatty". Can anyone provide me with
a reasonable case to refute this claim?  Are there any alternatives?
I can argue with the management types, but they want me to back my
argument up that MRTG is the more reasonable solution. But if MRTG goes
through it would sure give MRTG some worldwide exposure. That's about
all I can say on that matter.
Thanks.
KJ

-- 

/-----------------------------\  /--------------------------\
|       Kerry J. Cox          |__|   kerry.cox at ksl.com      |
|   KSL System Administrator   __     p: 801.575.7771       |
|    http://www.ksl.com/      |  |    f: 801.575.5745       |
\-----------------------------/  \--------------------------/


--
Unsubscribe mailto:mrtg-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe 
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/mrtg 
FAQ         http://faq.mrtg.org    Homepage     http://www.mrtg.org 
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi 


--
Unsubscribe mailto:mrtg-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/mrtg
FAQ         http://faq.mrtg.org    Homepage     http://www.mrtg.org
WebAdmin    http://www.ee.ethz.ch/~slist/lsg2.cgi