<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: RE: -MS SNMP stuff</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Have finally got round to looking at part of this. The dual processor machine I wanted to try Win2K server on has been appropriated for other purposes so I'll have to wait a while to try that. I did try Win2K workstation beta3 on a single processor machine and the snmp service does support the host resources mib without needing any extra configuration. So that looks to be a good sign anyway. There's also a whole new set of MS enterprise mib variables that I have yet to find a mib file for but I'm going to keep looking...</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Charles</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Neil Francis [<A HREF="mailto:n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk">mailto:n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: 29 July 1999 15:34</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Charles Gillanders</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: RE: -MS SNMP stuff</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>No - I have only looked at NT 5 workstation. Not Server and not SNMP.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>It would be interesting to see how you fare.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Neil</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:49:11 +0100 Charles Gillanders </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><charles@toucan.ie> wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> Thanks for the info, you may be interested to know that I saw a posting to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the effect that NT5 will natively support the host-resources mib properly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> without needing to add performance manager counters into the equation.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I am going to check with beta 3 later this week (time allowing) I can let</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> you know what I find, unless you've already done this.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Charles</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: Neil Francis [<A HREF="mailto:n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk">mailto:n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: 26 July 1999 13:11</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: Charles Gillanders</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: -MS SNMP stuff</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I had a couple of responses. I think the root cause is Microsoft's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> half hearted implementation of SNMP on its NT OS. The second response </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> here is probably the root cause.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Also I have _always_ had a problem with the % counters on NT boxes. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> They either show 100% or nothing. Even for disk usage, memory useage </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and CPU. Again - I think it is just bad coding from MS. The only way </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to so this is manually.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Hello Neil!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I was hunting for information on the exact same subject, and came across</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> your post dated Jan 28th.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> According to MS, the SNMP counters for SMP machines will not be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> reliable, period. Something to do with MS deciding not to implement</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> proper locking when fetching the data. Check out TechNet, searching for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> "SMP and SNMP".</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I would *love* to be mistaken, because I have the same problem to solve.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> If you can help out, please don't hesitate!</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Cheers,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Fernando</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Fernando da Silveira Montenegro Nutec Servicos Corporativos</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> System/Network Consultant Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <A HREF="mailto:montenegro@nutec.com.br">mailto:montenegro@nutec.com.br</A> <A HREF="http://www.nutec.com.br" TARGET="_blank">http://www.nutec.com.br</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> voice.:+55-11-5505-5728 #include <std_disclaimer.h></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I saw your posting as i was searching for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the key works SNMP 100% looking for others</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> who have seen what i have seen.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Yes it is true on a dual system i am</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> finding that usualy processor 2 spikes to 100</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> while using snmputil.exe Here is why its doing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> it. Inside of snmputil it calls SnmpMgrOpen()</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to open a connection to the snmp server this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> seems to be the problem call. If i put a Sleep(300)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> after this call i get more realistic percentages</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> from my system. So the bottom line is that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the SNMP.exe serverice on the NT Server I am</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> monitoring was written by someone who does</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> not know how to write efficient C code. I plan</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> on writing to Microsoft on this one but I doubt</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> they will do anything.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> I also tried sp4 so that didnt help.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> If you have anymore info on this please let</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> me know..</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Regards</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sean Mathews</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ----------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:46:45 +0100 Charles Gillanders </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> <charles@toucan.ie> wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Some time ago you wrote this message in comp.protocols.snmp I was </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > wondering if you ever got anything sorted out, I am seeing similar </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > issues here both on dual and quad boxes, it doesn't seem to matter </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> if > they're PII or PIII either.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > I would very much appreciate anything you discovered about this. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Oh > and also have you ever discovered any way of averaging the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> processor > figures to show average load, I tried Process \ Total \ </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> %Processor > Time but that always shows up 100%.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Thanks,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > Charles</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > > </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ----------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Neil Francis n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Tel: (44) 122 532 3571 Bath University Computing Services</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>----------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Neil Francis</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>n.j.francis@bath.ac.uk</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Tel: (44) 122 532 3571</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Bath University Computing Services</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>