| 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 |
Hello all,
I have a few question regarding the use of the graph facility in the
Iconic Map:
1. We have found that for some SNMP subentities, the graph option remains
shaded even though the class has some Counter32 attributes. Is there
a restriction on the numeric datatypes supported by the graph? We
encoutered the problem with the Synoptics subentity in the SNMP AM.
2. Are there any plans to allow a user to set the scale of the graph
himself rather than calculate it automatically? This would be useful,
for example when the user wishes to visually compare two similar
or related attributes
3. We have noticed that when two attributes of the same partition are
graphed, two identical mcc_call's are generated. Are there any plans
to improve this ?
Amicalement,
Philippe.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4380.1 | VERNA::V_GILBERT | Wed Jan 13 1993 08:10 | 15 | ||
Philippe, 1. Counter32 attributes are graphable. What version of MCC are you using as there was a bug fixed regarding graphable subentities which might fix your problem. 2. There are no definite plans to enhance the graph. If this is considered very desirable, it could be added to the wishlist, but no guarantees. 3. Currently each attribute being graphed generates a mcc_call. A single attribute mcc_call is being considered for a subsequent version. If this is implemented, we will use it, so there is less network traffic. Hope this helps. Verna | |||||
| 4380.2 | CCIIS1::ROGGEBAND | _ �hili��e _ | Wed Jan 13 1993 11:13 | 19 | |
Verna,
Thanks for the reply.
1. The customer is using the official FCS DECmcc 1.2
2. Who do I send my wishlist to ?
3. Just a thought : even if single-attribute MCC_CALL is implemented by
the PM, it will be a while before AM's support it, so there won't be
less network traffic.
Woudn't it make more sense both in terms of network AND DECmcc overhead
(thread & handle creation etc...) to keep on using partition-type
mcc_calls and to optimize the graph PM?
Regards,
Philippe.
| |||||
| 4380.3 | Requirements to EMF_REQ | TOOK::MINTZ | Erik Mintz | Wed Jan 13 1993 11:41 | 3 |
Wish list items should go to product management, and the easiest way to do that is via the NOTED::EMF_REQ conference. | |||||
| 4380.4 | Thank You. | CCIIS1::ROGGEBAND | _ �hili��e _ | Wed Jan 13 1993 11:53 | 1 |