Re: Graphical software to control networks
Andrew Miehs wrote:
I like to have OpenView under Linux ;-)
Why? What functionality do you need in OpenView that you don't have in
other freeware products. Openview is only expensive... and IF you can
affore openview, you can definitely afford a cheap Sun box to run it on.
YES!:) in fact, not so cheap (6pack of beer or something;), but when you
see the prices for the OV, the box will seem cheap.
[cut]
HP Openview gives you a pretty picture of your network.
BUT its costs a LOT of money, and it is a PAIN to keep updated.
YES!
Spectrum if it still exists was a great product in Enterprise environements,
BUT for a service provider
a) SLOW
b) Unable to deal with different subnet masks on the same interface...
and BOTH had the bad habit of trying to read the complete routing table
YEP!!! my first encounter with this VERY BAD habbit, about 4 years ago,
finished with the comments like "openview is the most expensive way to
overload a router". OV tried to fetch the whole table using SNMP;) and
the fault, in fact, was mine, i did not know about this OV feature - it
is a robust software, and can be very dangerous. but this does not mean
that OV is bugware.and, anyway, this is some kind of standard in the
corporate world. and if it is working under linux, it means something -
good for linux.
per default from a router... NOT very good if most of your boxes have a
full bgp feed....
Cheers
Andrew
BUT: the pretty picture is often needed. sometimes, customers trust OV
and don't trust free/open source things. and the customer pays. but, you
should consider do you need such investment carefully, the term
"nation-wide" may hide behind something easier to maintain that a
mid-sized corporate network. OV is not cheap, there is lots of things to
learn if you want to use it well. BUT: i think that in some situations
it pays back well - but choose carefully. that's why the tryout/demos are;)
boris pavlov
PS anyway, if someone have the time (and reasonable network) to try out
OV on linux, it is good to put back some info about that. Let's not try
to start flames about that;)
Reply to: