Conference netcad::hub_mgnt

The next version of HUBwatch (V3.0) is due sometime around February 1994.

The last I was told, it *might* support OpenVMS AXP, if it comes "free" (ie: 
all we need to do is re-compile and re-link our OpenVMS VAX code, and it's
done).

We're committed to doing OpenVMS VAX and probably OSF/1 AXP.

The biggest risk in doing multiple platforms isn't really the port, though.
It's testing multiple platforms.  And (ugh) going thru multiple (ugh) release
processes.  Just getting a single kit to the SSB (ugh) takes ungodly amounts 
of time and frustration.

How important is HUBwatch for OpenVMS AXP?



- Tom Hood
  HUBwatch kayaker-at-large and resident VMS bigot.

    I have one customer who is going to purchase 8 hub90's, with 45
    Brouters, 8 Bridge90 FL, or 8 Bridge 90's. The platforms are 4 Alpha
    VMS systems.  An additional question is the need to manage 4 DECnis
    500's, from a single management system. The last time this question
    came up, the answer was "OpenView".  Has anything changed  ?? Apart
    from DECmcc, (it aint porting to Alpha).
    
    Regards John

We're actively bidding many Alpha solutions now - OpenVMS has most of the
layered products functional, and OSF/1 is competitive in the UNIX space.

I'm working on a bid now that includes several OSF1/AXP systems, and one
OpenVMS/AXP, just to support Pathworks.  I'm configuring DEChub 900's, but
I can't see putting in a VAX workstation just for HUBwatch.  Support on VMS/AXP
would be great, followed by OSF1 and WNT.  For this bid, we will assume the
price for HUBwatch will be about the same on VMS/AXP, so we'll include the
VAX software as representative pricing, and hope /AXP is ready by the time they
buy (or soon after).  Any chance that product numbers (and prices) could be
determined so it could be quoted/ordered, then we wouldn't have to handle it
manually?

    I'm curious; in 433.3 you say the bid includes 'several OSF1/AXP
    systems, and one OpenVMS/AXP, just ot support Pathworks'; why is it
    that you rank the VMS version of HUBwatch as more important?

For my opinion it is more important to have asap the next version of HUBwatch on
OSF/1 than on Alpha VMS.

The moste of our customers specialy new one (not the installed base) want to
have an integrated Networkmanagement. Our future (powerfull future) is 

Polycenter on NetView Manager, first running on OSF/1. If we want be competitive
(and its hard at the moment to fight against other management tools like HP and
others), we need to offer at least our own application on one plattform
(HUBwatch must be launcable from Poly. on NetView Mananger.

I am a VMS hacker, had no courses in ULTRIX or OSF/1 but I think the future is
not VMS. We sell with word like open, integrated, for the future ....
and thats  N O T  VMS...sorry, so all we VMS freaks (including me) have to
change our minds........



Roland 

We have just lost a �500,000 Hub900 project, mainly on price. One of the
problems was the need to have TWO network management systems - the customer
insisted that the main NMS was UNIX based (POLYCENTER FRAMEWORK on ULTRIX for
now, since we don't have an OSF/1-AXP offering with the same functionality).

We also needed a VMS system to run HUBWATCH.

One of the other factors was the awful performance of the new HUBWATCH - like it
takes 45sec plus to get a response from a hub, even runing on a 4000/60 with 
64Mb.

We need to get all our network management capability onto a single platform, ie
OSF/1 AXP, PDQ, if we are to retain the little credibility that we have regained
with the hub products.

JMHO

Dave

    We are doing a prototype and running the latest hubwatch on an old
    VAXstation 3100 managing two DEChub 90's through a DECagent and the
    response, while slow, is much much better than 45 seconds. I was hoping
    that when we get the 900 and a fast Alpha version of HUBwatch it would
    fly.
    
    COuld you explain more about the config and why youthink it is so slow?
    
    /joel
    

    .6�We need to get all our network management capability onto a single platform, ie
    .6�OSF/1 AXP, PDQ, if we are to retain the little credibility that we have regained
    .6�with the hub products.
    
    I strongly support your views, except that I think we need an entry
    level management platform ie a PC (Windows).
    
    We also desperately need unattended feedback from the hubs (90 & 900) 
    ie. 
    
    	- power supply 3 just failed
    	- module 1 removed, module 2 inserted
    	- line 23 of module 6 open, short, ....
    
    in a timely (few secs maximum) manner.

    On the issue of unattended feedback, our intent is to add some RMON
    support so that you can get notices on whatever changes you need.
    

    .9�    On the issue of unattended feedback, our intent is to add some RMON
    
    Good idea !
    
    Along similar lines we must be able to run HUB + PROBE WATCH on the
    same platform.