[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference azur::mcc

Title:	DECmcc user notes file. Does not replace IPMT.
Notice:	Use IPMT for problems. Newsletter location in note 6187
Moderator:	TAEC::BEROUD

Created:	Mon Aug 21 1989
Last Modified:	Wed Jun 04 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	6497
Total number of notes:	27359

3147.0. "Suitability of VAXstation 4000 VLC & BMS" by CHOVAX::GAUL () Mon Jun 08 1992 14:09

    Can anyone offer any data supporting the running of DECmcc BMS V1.2 on a
    VAXstation 4000 VLC with 24 MB mem. Our customer questioned me on the
    suitability of the platform to support DECmcc. There network is not
    that big ( ~9 VAX's, three locations-bridged, ~120 terminal server    
    ports, AT&T hubs) but there is a growing population of PCs.
    
    I tried convincing him that it is definately a recommended platform,
    but if anyone could offer experiences or references it would be
    appreciated.
    
    Thanks
    Bob Gaul
    dtn-336-2143

T.R Title User Personal
Name Date Lines

3147.1 Recommend fast CPU & lots of memory CUJO::HILL Dan Hill-Net.Mgt.-Customer Resident Wed Jun 10 1992 02:42 52

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
3147.1	Recommend fast CPU & lots of memory	CUJO::HILL	Dan Hill-Net.Mgt.-Customer Resident	`Wed Jun 10 1992 02:42`	52
	Bob, You should bear in mind that the VAXstation 4000 VLC is the absolute bottom of the line you should recommend to a customer to support DECmcc. If you recommend this, you must be certain to set your customer's expectations accordingly. You can expect DECmcc to run slowly on such a system. This is not good, especially if the network is growing. The bigger it gets, the worse life will be for you. Additionally, the more alarm rules you enable, the more memory you use. There are other considerations that make the selection more complicated. For example, are you using a local MIR or a DNS namespace? If you're using DNS, you had better have a fast server, and you'd better tune your DECmcc management node to support huge amounts of buffered I/O. Also, if at all possible, do not make your DECmcc node part of a cluster. The additional overhead (especially if you have a slow CPU with little memory) will drag you down. Customer perceptions are VERY important. If they see DECmcc run slowly, and then see some of the PC-based network management products (e.g., Network General) or those from HP that run on much faster CPUs, DECmcc and you will look bad. I know because I've been there. We've been running DECmcc on VAXstation 3100/SPX Model 38 and VAXstation 3100 Model 76, both with maximum memory in each. It ain't pretty. We look sad (speed-wise) next to HP on a 25 SPECmark SUN. Functionality is fine. It is just that DECmcc runs so slow on these systems that it is virtually unusable. We are upgrading the VAXstation 3100/SPX Model 38 to a VAXstation 4000 Model 60 with 64MB of memory. Our nameservers will be VAX 4000 Model 300s. This should get us by. The VAXstation 3100 Model 76 will be upgraded to a VAXstation 4000 Model 90 with 64MB (or more). If DECmcc doesn't perform well on this platform, I'm giving up on network management and going to work at McDonald's. The developers of DECmcc have done a fine job with the product. In my mind, having compared it against V2.0 of HP OpenView (V3.0 will be on the streets in a week or so), I think we are competitive. Our VMS platforms are simply lagging WAY behind the U*IX systems in terms of performance. DECmcc on Ultrix runs quite well if you have a fast nameserver. Bottom line: Recommend the fastest system with the most memory you can get away with. -Dan

    Bob,
    
    You should bear in mind that the VAXstation 4000 VLC is the absolute
    bottom of the line you should recommend to a customer to support
    DECmcc.  If you recommend this, you must be certain to set your
    customer's expectations accordingly.
    
    You can expect DECmcc to run slowly on such a system.  This is not
    good, especially if the network is growing.  The bigger it gets, the
    worse life will be for you.
    
    Additionally, the more alarm rules you enable, the more memory you use. 
    
    There are other considerations that make the selection more
    complicated.  For example, are you using a local MIR or a DNS
    namespace?  If you're using DNS, you had better have a fast server, and
    you'd better tune your DECmcc management node to support huge amounts
    of buffered I/O.
    
    Also, if at all possible, do not make your DECmcc node part of a
    cluster.  The additional overhead (especially if you have a slow CPU
    with little memory) will drag you down.
    
    Customer perceptions are VERY important.  If they see DECmcc run
    slowly, and then see some of the PC-based network management products
    (e.g., Network General) or those from HP that run on much faster CPUs,
    DECmcc and you will look bad.  I know because I've been there.
    
    We've been running DECmcc on VAXstation 3100/SPX Model 38  and
    VAXstation 3100 Model 76, both with maximum memory in each.  It ain't
    pretty.  We look sad (speed-wise) next to HP on a 25 SPECmark SUN. 
    Functionality is fine.  It is just that DECmcc runs so slow on these
    systems that it is virtually unusable.
    
    We are upgrading the VAXstation 3100/SPX Model 38 to a VAXstation 4000
    Model 60 with 64MB of memory.  Our nameservers will be VAX 4000 Model
    300s.  This should get us by.  The VAXstation 3100 Model 76 will be
    upgraded to a VAXstation 4000 Model 90 with 64MB (or more).  If DECmcc
    doesn't perform well on this platform, I'm giving up on network
    management and going to work at McDonald's.
    
    The developers of DECmcc have done a fine job with the product.  In my
    mind, having compared it against V2.0 of HP OpenView (V3.0 will be on
    the streets in a week or so), I think we are competitive.  Our VMS
    platforms are simply lagging WAY behind the U*IX systems in terms of
    performance.  DECmcc on Ultrix runs quite well if you have a fast
    nameserver.
    
    Bottom line:  Recommend the fastest system with the most memory you can
    get away with.
    
    -Dan