Michael Douglass wrote:
>
> Part of the problem as I see it is that portmon tends to wait TOO LONG
> for things to timeout when they are down. Another problem is that
> everything is monitored serially; perhaps having portmon fork off a
> couple of helper children who actually do all of the work and just
> take instructions/return results from/to the parent via pipes.
>
you need to use portmon2. It sends N requests in parallel.
Carl
> Just thoughts.
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 09:01:12AM -0400, Mike Gibbs said:
> >
> > Portmon seems way to slow for what it is doing. Monitoring 150 servers
> > for 2 ports (smtp and http) it takes 1.5 hours to cycle once. Is this
> > normal, or a misconfiguration on my part? Also, if it is normal, what
> > functions are needed to output the same stuff to nocols databases if I
> > write my own portmon, so I can still use nocol for the gui.
> >
> >
> > Mike Gibbs
>
> --
> Michael Douglass
> Texas Networking, Inc.
>
> Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable for a feature.
> -- from some indian guy
--
Carl W. Kalbfleisch
Manager NMS Development
Verio Inc., http://www.verio.net
|